asked the secretary of State for Defence what proposals are currently under consideration by Her Majesty's Government for the civilian use of Royal Naval dockyards.

Because of the heavy load of naval work the Royal dockyards can undertake only a limited amount of civilian work. A number of inquiries are, however, being considered, but for commercial reasons I cannot at this stage disclose details of them or the firms concerned.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reading his ministerial reply. Can he give us more information? Who will run the dockyards if they are to be operated as industrial concerns? What industries will be operated in them?

It is too early to say what the outcome of the defence review will be, but our policy is to ensure that if any surplus dockyard capacity were to arise it would be put fully to productive use in the national interest under present control.

Can the Minister state the position with regard to the amount of civilian working at the Rosyth naval dockyard?

The position for Rosyth is exactly as for the other dockyards. Our future policy is as defined in my previous answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many commissioned and non-commissioned Servicemen, and from what forces, are currently serving in Oman.

About 200 volunteers from all three Services are serving on loan with the forces of the Sultan of Oman. A number of Army and RAF personnel are based at Salalah and at the RAF staging post on Masirah island. It is not customary to make public detailed deployments of Her Majesty's Forces.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he also give the House the latest total of British casualties in this war? Can he clarify how many members of the Special Air Services are currently stationed in Oman and how, if they are there for personnel training, from time to time one of them is killed in a clash with rebel forces? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this sorry war, now in its eleventh year, is one of the most pathetic examples of the major world blocs playing two tiny nations off against each other? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend seek an international agreement to limit the supply to both sides of advisers and equipment, without which the war could not continue?

The men concerned are volunteers, and the Sultan is bearing all the costs. My hon. Friend is right: a unit of the SAS is in the Oman giving training assistance to the Sultan's forces. Occasionally there are casualties because they come into conflict with the rebels in the area, but I cannot give the exact figures of the casualties.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his hon. Friend seemed to show more glee than regret at British casualties? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman cares to withdraw what he said, well and good. If I am mistaken, so much the better. Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that Masirah Island is an essential point in the British defence strategy?

I would not at this stage stress to what extent it is essential. We are using it at present as a Royal Air Force staging post. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my hon. Friends concern. I think he was registering concern that British Service men might be getting killed in the Oman. There is a conflict there, and I think he was expressing concern that the quicker the conflict was ended, the better.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the use of military premises in the training of civilian police officers in techniques of crowd control.

In agreement with the Home Office, we consider on its merits any request from the police for the use of Service premises and facilities in crowd control training.

Does my hon. Friend recall that just before the miners' strike several examples were reported of soldiers and police training together in what was then euphemistically called crowd control? Can he give the House an indication of the extent to which it is still carried on? Can he also give an undertaking that the whole situation will be much more seriously kept in check in future?

I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that this is a matter which is very carefully considered. I can also say quite plainly that there is no question of there being any joint training of the Armed Forces and the police in the way he suggests.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that co-operation between the civilian police and the military is very good training for some emergencies that might occur and that good liaison between the two bodies is of benefit to both?

I think that we must treat these matters in a relaxed and sensible way. What I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) is true. There is no joint training, nor do I think that there should be such training.

Does not the Army frequently fulfil what is commonly regarded as a civilian rôle? Is it not doing so in Northern Ireland? Is it not desirable that the Army should be trained for what it has to do?

First I said nothing about not training the Army for rôles which it has to fulfil. Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between the rôle that the Army carries out in Northern Ireland, with the full support of both sides of the House, and the sort of dangers about which my hon. Friend was concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he is likely to announce the review of defence expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he now in a position to provide further information about the progress of his defence review.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he intends making on defence expenditure following the defence review; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make an interim statement about his review of defence expenditure.

The review which I announced on 21st March is still in progress, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on its outcome. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that as he is reviewing nuclear weapons expenditure it would be fair and consistent for him to make strong representations to the French, to oppose their tests in the atmosphere and to oppose tests whether they be British, French, Chinese or Russian? Further, does he accept that it would be desirable if he impressed upon his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment that it would be better for him to be consistent in his opposition to the detestable regime in South Africa?

On my hon. Friend's first point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already done so. On his second point, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment has said.

As the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will consult our allies on the terms of the defence review, will he consult the British people? Will he give a firm assurance that the review will he published before the General Election in view of the rumours that it will lead to a withdrawal from the Cyprus base? Will he say now that there will be no withdrawal of our forces from Cyprus? Surely even Her Majesty's Government must realise that to withdraw from the base now would lead to further instability.

I do not know when the General Election will take place so I cannot state whether my White Paper will be before it or after it. All I can say is that the work on the White Paper is complex and is taking longer than I imagined. The question of Cyprus is subject to the review, but we have just seen how important a role our forces play in helping to maintain peace and stability on the island.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when he comes to recommend the defence cuts there are two matters to consider carefully in the balance? The first is the effect of the cuts upon civilians employed in Britain and the second is the political question of how far the British people are prepared to see Britain's defence posture weakened.

When anybody is considering cuts in defence expenditure I always expect that there will be two strongly expounded points of view. My hon. Friend represents one such point of view. I shall take on board what he says about the review because naturally employment considerations are playing a part in the review. That is one reason for the review being slowed down.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific? Is it not true that the internal papers are now all prepared? Is he not considering what he feels should be done about them? Will he be specific about when he will start consulting our allies and, simultaneous with that, when he will consult the House?

I should like to know how the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that internal papers are already prepared. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are they?"] The ramifications of the documents that are before me are so complex and wide-ranging that it will take some time before Ministers will be able to peruse them and to consider the options that are available. I cannot be more honest and frank than that.

When my right hon. Friend announces the outcome of his review, will he continue to have regard to Britain's balance of payments? Will he continue to realise that other countries in Europe with which we are associated have an embarrassing balance of payments surplus? Does he realise that it would be better if the people who are now engaged in defending this island were producing exports rather than remaining a charge on the Exchequer?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but it does not necessarily follow that if there were major cuts in defence expenditure those who were declared unemployed or redundant would immediately be able to go into export based industries where we badly require them. That is one of the problems of the review.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has now had five months to make a review of defence expenditure, the review being based upon a Labour Party pledge to make substantial cuts in expenditure? Does he accept that there has been total uncertainty in the Armed Services and in all the companies concerned? For the right hon. Gentleman to say that the reason for further delay is that Ministers need a lot more time to peruse the papers before them reeks of lethargy or of putting off the review until after the General Election.

First, Ministers have not had the papers placed before them. This is a massive exercise. We are examining every commitment abroad from the Far East right through to NATO. We are also considering every capability of Her Majesty's Forces. Further, we have to consider to what extent there will be job redundancies and job prospects lost as a result of the review. The consequences in certain areas and upon certain firms have to be considered. It is right that the matter should be considered calmly and rationally. Further, it is right that it should take time.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of most of the right hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways he expects Great Britain's continued membership of the European Communities to affect Great Britain's defence situation, in particular in relation to Western Europe.

The Treaty of Rome has no defence content and there is no discussion of defence matters in the framework of the European Communities. Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to European defence co-operation within the North Atlantic Alliance, and in particular to the work of the Eurogroup.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Atlantic Declaration which was signed last month by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, along with his colleagues from the North Atlantic Alliance, declares that the further progress towards unity that the members of the EEC are determined to make could be beneficial for the defence of the North Atlantic Alliance as a whole? Will he study the document and draw it to the attention of all his colleagues?

No doubt all my hon. Friends who are following the negotiations within the EEC will have in mind the new document on the reformation of the Alliance and the transatlantic link.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the sharing of the defence burden among the Western community is very unequal? Further, will he bear in mind that the £400 million a year that it costs us to keep British troops in Germany, three-quarters of which adds to our serious imbalance of payments, cannot be compared with Germany's great surplus and the benefit that German and not British manufacturers derive from the British troops?

My hon. Friend is fully aware that one of our starting points for the review was the gross national product figures for Britain compared with the corresponding figures for the Western European countries, especially France and Germany. When we take into account the NATO statistics and when we consider them in terms of defence expenditure, it is apparent that we are spending more than other countries. That is one reason for the review. I must advise my hon. Friend that the central front happens to be the front of our nation too. We have to pay the price if we are to maintain stability in that area.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the closer we get with our European partners in the community on defence matters as well as on economic and foreign policies, the better it will be for the defence of Europe? It is not only the central front which is important to this country but also the northern front. What is the Secretary of State doing to strengthen that front?

I do not have to do any more at the moment to strengthen the northern front, but I will take into consideration what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt he has played a part at Western European Union and the Council of Europe, and many of their papers, documents and presentations have been helpful to defence policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in our lifetime all these other countries of the EEC have owed a great debt of gratitude to the United Kingdom? Does he agree also that in this nuclear bomb-laden world the essential thing about all defence policy is that it must be assisted by intelligent foreign policy, because if foreign policy goes wrong and nuclear explosions take place there will be no more EEC or any other community but only dust? That must be the quintessence of all defence policy.

I agree that defence policy follows foreign policy. In our foriegn policy we have been trying to stress internationally that more countries should join the Non-Proliferation Treaty—the "NPT club". I am sorry that some have refused to do so and have recently exploded nuclear devices in the atmosphere. This has prompted much international concern.

If it is the fact that defence policy follows foreign policy, does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the rather weak attitude of the EEC during the Yom Kippur war? Did not that attitude nearly disrupt NATO at the time? Therefore, is not the Common Market slightly disruptive of peace? Should we not look at this matter through the eyes of NATO and not have anything to do with the Common Market?

That was a rather odd and circuitous route from the Yom Kippur war back to the Common Market. I thought that the strangest aspect of that period was the misunderstanding which took place between the United States and NATO.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the operations in Northern Ireland

Throughout Northern Ireland the Army is helping the RUC to maintain order and to bring men of violence to justice.

With regard to Cyprus and other vital British commitments, may not the defence review have to result in National Service unless there is some expedited progress in Northern Ireland, where the emergency has gone on for a long time? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his colleagues in the Cabinet the need, in view of the failure of the Irish Republic to extradite terrorists, to seal the border? Should not serious thought be given to improving the security situation by military and political means?

I shall not rise to the bait and the spectre of National Service. I do not think that that is necessary. Despite the Cyprus requirements, we have managed to maintain 15,000 men in Northern Ireland. Although it is a strain on Her Majesty's Forces we are able to do it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the charge which is frequently made that the Special Air Service is operating in Northern Ireland? Secondly, with regard to the admission by the Army that the IRA has been listening in to Army telephone calls, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so-called innocent calls were made with a scrambling device? Is this likely to occur again?

No units of the SAS are operating in Northern Ireland. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is no secure speech on telephones. The arrest of Brendan Hughes proved that the Provisionals' tapping of telephones was not very successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has now taken to protect oil and gas installations in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom.

Protection from external attack forms part of national and NATO defence planning. As regards peace time, I refer the right hon. Member to my reply on 1st July—[Vol. 876, c. 36.]—to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) in which I explained that the precise rôle of the Armed Services would depend on the circumstances. Naturally, the Ministry of Defence is constantly seeking ways to ensure that the response of the Armed Services to any contingency is made with the greatest possible effect.

Who is now responsible for co-ordinating all the various organisations involved with such defence? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that never again will a Soviet spy ship be able to go alongside one of our oil rigs and take whatever pictures it wants?

There is a later Question about that matter. The installations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in his Question are under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. The responsibility for them thus rests with the same authorities as would be responsible on land, including owners, the police, other civil authorities and the Armed Forces. We therefore regard the close co-ordination of the plans of various Government Departments as essential, and the Government take collective responsibility for it.

Does my hon. Friend recall that security at 27 of the 29 British oil rigs is at present in the doubtless capable hands of the Chief Constable of Aberdeen? Can my right hon. Friend enlarge on the undertaking, given on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill yesterday, that the Government will look into this whole question?

I endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the Chief Constable of Aberdeen, whose hands are certainly capable. I underline the seriousness with which the Government treat this subject by drawing attention to the very successful seminar, held under Ministry of Defence auspices and attended by hon. Members from both sides of the House, amongst others with specialist responsibilities, on 23rd July. At the seminar the Government said that we would not relax our efforts to improve all the time the co-ordination of Government policy as a whole.

What pressure is the hon. Gentleman bringing on the oil companies to increase their own security of rigs and platforms?

This is an important aspect of our overall policy. We are in constant close touch and liaison with the oil companies. We hope that they will be able to play a full part, particularly in aspects of design, in contributing towards effective defence.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that his remarks about the Chief Constable of Aberdeen will be warmly received in the North-East of Scotland and in Scotland generally because these rigs lie under the jurisdiction of Scots law? What consultation is the hon. Gentleman having with the Norwegian Government on this matter, since they must have similar problems?

Naturally we consult our allies about the whole policy of the defence of North Sea installations. This is essentially an international matter and one which cannot be handled simply on a national basis.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if we had a Scottish navy, as proposed by the Scottish National Party, all these problems would be solved?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us the strength of the navy of the Chief Constable of Aberdeen. Is he aware that many of us who attended that very interesting seminar came away with the feeling that the one thing lacking was co-ordination? It is not good enough to say that the Government as a whole are co-ordinating. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Government to consider appointing a person of substantial authority to co-ordinate these activities?

When we became the Government earlier this year, one of the problems which deeply concerned us was the need to improve co-ordination. We have since taken steps to improve co-ordination. We see it as a collective Government responsibility, and Ministers in the various Departments concerned share that responsibility as a front line as part of their general policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what results have been obtained from the recent exhibition sponsored by Her Majesty's Government in Iran of British defence material.

It is too early to measure results in terms of contracts actually achieved, but some of the exhibitors have been asked to supply quotations.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give an assurance that Iran will be allowed to purchase that for which it contracts from this Government, and will he ensure that Iran does not suffer the current fate of the Indian Government, which after many years of bargaining with the British Government for the supply of Jaguar aircraft to India has found that the British Government are refusing to support the loan which would enable the exports to be made?

Without accepting the analogy that the hon. Gentleman mentions, I can give the assurance he seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now announce his plans for the future of the Royal Naval Dockyards.

I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 21st May 1974—[Vol. 874, cc. 116–7.]. The naval dockyards will continue to fulfil their rôle of supporting the Fleet.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, as a Member representing a dockyard constituency, that he is telling us nothing and that we have now waited five months but still know nothing about the future of the dockyards?

I would have thought that the hon. Lady, with her intimate knowledge of the dockyards and their problems, together with her hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), would recognise that at the moment the dockyards have a full load of naval work which stretches into the future. We on this side of the House have every confidence in the ability of the labour force in the dockyards to continue serving the interests of the Navy effectively into the future and we believe that they will take on any other national priority which may be appropriate from time to time.

Has my hon. Friend made progress in his calculations of how far the naval dockyards might in future assist in the construction of the necessary equipment to exploit North Sea oil, of which the Navy will be the defender.

I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing constructive interest in this matter. I can assure him that specific interdepartmental machinery is now established to deal with this problem.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether there are to be defence cuts within the region of £1,000 million, or even hundreds of millions of pounds? Will he say whether in the light of such cuts closure of a dockyard would be likely? Will he turn his mind to this matter and indicate whether what I say is the case and say on which dockyard he is focusing?

I know of no plans to cut defence by £1,000 million. As we have repeatedly told the House, we do not share the doubts and the misgivings of some Opposition Members about the capabilities of the labour force in our dockyards. We believe that the skilled men in the dockyards, supported by unskilled labourers with an established reputation, will serve the national economy on a whole range of important priorities in the future should the need arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what alternatives to multi-role combat aircraft exist in the different roles which are planned for the aircraft by the RAF; and what is their cost.

No single aircraft exists or is in prospect which is a practicable alternative to the MRCA.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any proposal or even the hint of a proposal to cut the numbers of aircraft that we might be taking under this collaborative venture would seriously damage our reputation as collaborators in international arms ventures at a time when the Secretary of State has rightly reiterated the virtues of such agreements?

We have in consultation with our allies determined a certain number of aircraft that we will take. Any numbers of aircraft must be subject to the comprehensive defence review which my right hon. Friend has mentioned, but certainly we are well aware of the importance of this collaborative venture.

What is the present state of the MRCA project? Is my hon. Friend aware that a group of Labour Members flew to Germany in mid-May to be shown what was clearly billed as the golden plane of the Western world but that we have since heard only reports of engine problems and soaring costs? Can my hon. Friend confirm or deny those reports?

There has been a manufacturing rather than a design fault of a minor nature with the engine, but I am confident that the aircraft will now make its first flight shortly.

Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to deny the allegation made by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that these aircraft will now cost £9 million each?

There are a number of different conventions on how to cost aeroplanes, but on the convention used in Britain I can say, as I said in the House in May, that such a figure is wildly exaggerated.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what interest has been shown by what other countries in the advanced Harrier; and if he will take steps to ensure that it is produced in the United Kingdom.

The United States have shown particular interest in the advanced Harrier and we are engaged with them in joint feasibility studies. No firm decision on the development and production of the aircraft has yet been taken by either Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman seek to ensure that when the decision is taken a reasonable proportion of the production will take place in this country, thus ensuring, particularly for firms in my constituency, the retention of skilled design teams which have been so painstakingly built up?

The retention of work will depend on the decisions that are finally taken. I know that Hawker Siddeley and Rolls-Royce have played full parts in the joint studies and that they have full commercial agreements with their American counterparts, which should ensure what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Can my hon. Friend comment on the report by Air Commodore Donaldson that Harriers will be based on oil rigs?

I have difficulty in speculating on the truth of Air Commodore Donaldson's reports. This is an entirely different Question from the one dealing with the advanced Harrier, which is in an entirely different time scale.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the introduction of the naval Harrier and the export orders that such a decision would produce.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 21st May —[Vol. 874, col. 160]. We remain determined to take a decision as soon as possible within the context of the Defence Review.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a grave danger that this country will lose the advantage it gained through producing the most technically-advanced aircraft in the world unless we order it for the Royal Navy very quickly? Has he estimated the total gain accruing to this country in export orders for this aircraft if we produce it for our Navy?

We recognise the value of the maritime V/STOL aircraft. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the current review. Naturally the Navy is keen to have the maritime Harrier and this professional view will be taken fully into account in the context of the wider considerations which must form part of the Defence Review. In the context of that review, sales prospects will also receive attention.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House and to the workers at Hawker Siddeley that before the Defence Review reaches fruition there will be no laying off of men employed on Harrier production because the firm is short of contracts?

In assessing the effect on Hawker Siddeley I should like to emphasise that the design team is being kept together and that design work is at present continuing.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order I would much prefer that he raises it at the end of Question Time.

This concerns the Questions we have just dealt with, Mr. Speaker. I know that Prime Minister's Questions are important. Nevertheless, we have got through only about 19 of the Questions on the Order Paper tabled for the Secretary of State for Defence. Is this not an absolutely incredible performance? Can you not protect the rights of back benchers so that we can go a little faster?

Order. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman rose many times to try to ask supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the deployment of British forces in Cyprus; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the security of the Cyprus base.

The resident garrison in Cyprus was reinforced by two Royal Marine Commandos on Sunday 21st July followed by armoured car squadrons and an infantry battalion together with support personnel over the next few days. A number of Her Majesty's ships also deployed to the area. The level of forces required to ensure the security of the Cyprus base is being kept under review. The reinforcement was carried out with great efficiency and reflects much credit on the officers and men concerned in the planning and execution of the operation.

Following on the tribute to the work of the three Services for evacuating and looking after tourists and other British subjects, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many people now remain to be moved home and whether consideration has been given to the use of a Services cable communication to enable inquiries to be made from this country by people who are still worried about relatives and friends remaining in Cyprus?

I will consider the point about cable communication which until now has not been drawn to my attention. With regard to evacuation, we have already brought home 8,000 people, consisting of British residents and tourists of 49 different nations as well as some Service dependants. We have now started to evacuate about 1,200 dependants of Servicemen who should be living outside the sovereign base areas, bringing them home if their Service husbands are within three months of the end of their tours. That should satisfy the situation for the time being.

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. One of the reinforcements which went out was an armoured car squadron from my own regiment. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement today in The Times that the United Nations force is to be reintroduced in the future and, if so, what proportion of the reinforcement will be British?

A request was received a few days ago from the United Nations Secretary General for the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus to be increased. Her Majesty's Government responded quickly to the request and immediately released 600 men, including Coldstream Guards and 50 Ferret cars, which means that our United Nations contingent is about 1,350 strong and is the biggest unit in the peace-keeping rôle in Cyprus.

Can my right hon. Friend comment on the allegation made by a constituent of mine who was brought home from Cyprus that we were very slow off the mark? Will he indicate some of the difficulties which created this situation?

I thought we were cautious and safe. We had to make a calculation about when would be the right time for United Kingdom troops to move through Larnaka, Limassol, Famagusta and Kyrenia to bring in British residents as well as foreign tourists. If we had gone in prematurely it might have given an indication that we were possibly working in alliance with the Turks and many people might have been killed escaping to the sovereign base areas. I think that we took a calculated risk and were cautious, and in the end it proved to be safe and sure. There has been only one casualty involving the United Nations force and a small child of 10 who was killed in crossfire.

While joining in the tributes to the magnificent work done by our Services in carrying out the evacuation of civilians, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what compensation will he paid to those Service families whose homes have been looted following their withdrawal to the sovereign base areas?

I cannot give a figure but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have already broadcast on the forces network to Cyprus to give assurances of that kind to those of our Service men and their dependants who might have been adversely affected.

What advice is my right hon. Friend giving to tour operators who are still reported to be taking holidaymakers out to the island?

That is not within my province. As my hon. Friend will know, the Foreign Office has been giving advice to the Association of British Travel Agents. Most of its members have been heeding that advice.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention, assuming that there are no further outbreaks of fighting on the island, to allow the TAVR units which are to hold their annual camp there next month to go ahead, in particular the 4th Volunteer Battalion, Royal Green Jackets?

On the understanding that the hon. Gentleman might be wanting to go with them? It will depend entirely on the situation at the time. He must know that there was a TAVR unit on camp in Cyprus during the conflict which had to be brought back to the sovereign base area.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Conservative side of the House would very much like to convey our congratulations and thanks to all three Armed Services for the remarkable skill which they displayed in what was a very tricky operation? Secondly, is he aware that we would like to express our hope that the remarks he made in reply to an earlier Question mean that at least this sad episode has resulted in him realising the importance of Cyprus as a base?

We have always realised the importance of Cyprus, and who knows to what extent that will come through in the defence review? I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman said in praise of the troops. This evacuation is unparalleled in peace time. Great credit is due to all British forces who have been concerned, plus all three Services active in the home base who were supplying and sending out aircraft 24 hours a day—sending out not only troops but supplies and so on, and then bringing back all the 8,000 people, together with foreign nationals from 49 different countries, including Russia and Germany, who led their nations to believe that they got their people out first. It has been a remarkable operation and credit is due to all concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence where the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Rangers has served since 1969.

Since 1969, the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Rangers has been stationed at Catterick and in BAOR. During this period it has spent six months on an unaccompanied tour in Cyprus as part of the United Nations forces.

Is it not a little exceptional that this regiment has never been allowed to return to its home base in Northern Ireland or to fulfil duties in Northern Ireland? May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that its composition rather mirrors the community in Northern Ireland and that it might be of extremely effective assistant to the British Army out there?

The hon. Gentleman's point, though certainly worth serious consideration, raises difficult issues. As he will know, not since 1933 have any Irish regiments been stationed in Northern Ireland, except for training or ceremonial duties.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 15th July in London on pensions.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made in London on 15th July on pensions.

I did so on 18th July, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Government's pledge to increase pensions to £10 and £16 will not go unheeded by the electorate when it is called upon? Does he agree that it is the trade unions, both Left and Right, which campaigned for this increase when more faltering voices were not heard? Will he further give an assurance that the next Labour Government will phase out supplementary benefits by giving further increases to old-age pensioners, and will also phase out supplementary benefits whether from this side of the Channel or the other?

The action of the Government in raising pensions was widely regarded in the country as a necessary act of social justice. It is a fact that some leading trade unionists pressed for this as the first priority to be carried out and went to great lengths to explain to their members at work that they should make any necessary sacrifices for the benefit of these pensioners. On his other point, I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by placing firms' pensions schemes in limbo, as occurred when the Government refused to carry on the plans made by the previous Government, he is causing uncertainty and unhappiness, and possibly real hardship? Will he put something firm in place of what was a very good arrangement?

We do not agree that it was a good or fair arrangement. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to tell him that he will soon be seeing the proposals on superannuation, which my right hon. Friend will be issuing in the near future.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that since he made that speech to Age Concern the Government have implemented the largest-ever increase in pensions? Is he aware that this is one of the things that annoy Conservative Members? Is he further aware that what was so encouraging in that speech was the obvious desire of the British Labour movement to achieve a situation in which we shall be able to link pensions to average earnings so that, as my right hon. Friend has rightly said, true help may be given to our old-age pensioners?

In thanking my hon. Friend for his remarks, I reaffirm the commitment made about linking future increases in pensions to the average level of earnings.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, in the speech to which he has referred, he found it necessary to make an entirely misleading comparison between the increases in the State basic pension and the prospective increases which would have accrued under the Conservative Government scheme for a second pension? Was it perhaps because he has a sense of guilt at the repeated failure of successive Labour Governments under his leadership to bring into operation any scheme for a second occupational pension?

I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The calculation which I gave on what the comparison would be was completely correct. As for a sense of guilt, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on his Front Bench merry-go-round, has no direct responsibility for the State reserve scheme, he certainly had collective responsibility for it, and I am sure that even he will agree, when my right hon. Friend's scheme is published, that it is a much fairer scheme.

asked the Prime Minister if he will ask the Royal Commission on the Press to examine ways by which the archives of newspapers which cease publication may be preserved.

No, Sir. The larger public libraries already have extensive files of newspapers and the libraries of statutory deposit, led by the British Library, will continue to maintain comprehensive collections, including those of newspapers which have ceased publication.

Can my right hon. Friend say where the archives of newspapers which have gone into liquidation—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hansard."]—such as the Daily Herald, News Chronicle, Reynolds News and the GlasgowForward, which are extremely valuable archives, are now and what will be done to preserve future archives if other newspapers go into liquidation?

My hon. Friend knows that the British Library receives, under the Copyright Acts as a right, copies of all these papers and it maintains the collection which is available for reference at Colindale. It must be for the British Library Board to consider whether to develop this service. Some newspapers have transferred their archives, for example to universities, without going out of production. However, if my hon. Friend will let me know the particular cases he has in mind, I will try to get the answer. I do not know the answer in relation to the newspapers he has mentioned.

When the information is made available, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Royal Commission is made aware that the bulk of newspapers which have gone out of business have done so as a result of trade union restrictions and over-manning?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was recently an extremely constructive debate in the House on all the problems of the Press, including the cost of production and manning arrangments, and a much wider series of subjects was discussed, I thought in a fairly united spirit, by the House a few weeks ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gagging writ is a device which can seriously interfere with the freedom of the Press? As the Phillimore Committee is shortly to report on this device, will he ensure that the Royal Commission on the Press is able to take account of the Phillimore Committee's findings?

My hon. Friend will recall that this matter and others were covered in the recent debate on the Press and that the whole House was concerned to ascertain whether further measures could be introduced to ensure greater Press freedom of comment while preserving a reasonable degree of privacy for the individual.

asked the Prime Minister if he will set up an interdepartmental study of the consequences for Great Britain's economy of a decision to withdraw from the EEC.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friends have reported to the House on the renegotiations. All relevant information for all contingencies is always available to all Governments.

Has such a study already been made? Will the Prime Minister confirm that all members of the Cabinet support the Foreign Secretary in his approach to the negotiations, which is to approach them in good faith in the hope of a successful conclusion? Would not such a study prove to all members of the Government that the Foreign Secretary deserves support in his wish for this country to stay in the Community?

No special study has been made. My right hon. Friend has been negotiating in Brussels on the basis of the agreed view of the whole Cabinet—that was the mandate he was given—and I should have thought, though I have not had much evidence of this, that he probably receives a certain degree of support from Opposition Members for trying to put right the terms which were so badly negotiated two years ago.

Will my right hon. Friend note that there is no need for an interdepartmental study of the consequences of our not withdrawing from the Community because they are visible to all of us?

That is a view which my right hon. Friend may put forward, but some of my right hon. Friends, not least the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have been trying to put right, and with considerable success, some of the matters which had been badly negotiated.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, although we accept that the Foreign Secretary is negotiating in good faith, there was considerable surprise that what had clearly been indicated to be the Foreign Office view on the common energy policy, which had also been transmitted to our colleagues, was directly reversed when the Secretary of State for Trade got round the conference table? Would it not be better if the Foreign Secretary took the greater share, although admittedly he was on Cypriot business in Geneva? However, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this sort of behaviour does not enhance our reputation in Europe?

I do not agree. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would have been there but for his commitments in Geneva.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal to double the regional employment premium and the proposals of the Secretary of State for Industry to assist in keeping going factories which might otherwise shut are being held up by examination in the European Commission, will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the effects of our withdrawing from the Community will be that Her Majesty's Government and Parliament will be able to make their own decisions without restriction by a coven of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels?

There is no reason to suppose that the decisions of Her Majesty's Government referred to by my hon. Friend will be or can be held up by the Commission or anyone else in Brussels. If there were any attempt to do that, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals, including those on REP, with such enthusiasm in the vote last Wednesday evening would be the first to join in ensuring that that did not happen.

Will the Prime Minister answer the question put to him by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)? It is well known that what happened on the energy policy was that agreement was reached between all member countries of the Community, including the United Kingdom. It was reached by the officials dealing with this matter on the instructions of the British Government and it was overthrown entirely on the personal whim of the Secretary of State for Trade. Will the Prime Minister account for this, because it has established in the Community a complete mistrust of the faith of the British Government?

Before I reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I hope I shall not be too far out of order in referring to the incident involving him this morning, which I think all of us will agree was totally deplorable. The issues involved are far too important to be dealt with by hooliganism. They should be dealt with by free and democratic debate.

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks. I was delighted that the Minister for Sport was present at the occasion, and I am grateful to the Leader of the Liberal Party for the apology which he has sent me.

:: So much for a little coalition.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policy at Aberystwyth on 13th July.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policies at Aberystwyth on 13th July.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 19th July to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts).

In that speech the Prime Minister stressed the need for a united country working together. Does he agree with the Home Secretary that national unity will not be achieved on the basis, favoured by the Labour Left, of "ignoring middle opinion and telling everyone who does not agree with you to go to hell"? In the light of this, will the Prime Minister, in his customary unequivocal manner, tell the House whether he approves or disapproves of his right hon. Friend's speech at Haverfordwest?

In my customary unequivocal manner I remind the hon. Gentleman that he was first elected to this Parliament defending not a Britain that was working unitedly but a Britain on a three-day week. As to the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman—

Yes or No?

There are three parts to the supplementary question, and I shall answer the second before the third, as is customary in the House. In so far as the hon. Gentleman referred to matters which he thought were inimical to united working, many things have happened in the last week or two in the private sector that he supports which are extremely inimical to a united country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it comes ill from an Opposition Member to lecture us on policy when in the last three years we have had a Government whose policy existed almost totally of telling many sections of the population to go to hell? Does not my right hon. Friend think that it also comes ill from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who had the dubious distinction of being one of the 23 Conservative Members who repudiated their cowardly leadership by voting last week against a cut in VAT?

We do not need a literal transcriptions of what Conservative right hon. Gentleman said in those three years to know that their policies were divisive, that they failed and that they now have no policy at all.

As the Prime Minister considers the Home Secretary's speech to have covered only part of the whole truth, will he kindly tell the House what he considers the other part to be?

I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman the full text of what I shall say tonight. It would delay the House for a long time if I were to read out the speech now. The hon. Gentleman can have the pleasure of reading that speech. He has been in the House only a short time, and even Reigate will prove not to be safe with such a Tory candidate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that backward employers are extremely reluctant to treat their work-people as human beings, and that the time for worker representation in the higher levels of management in industry is long overdue? Is not that recognised in Labour Party policy, and does not my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no national unity until those facts are realised?

If my hon. Friend is referring to proposals for worker participation on boards, that policy is not confined to the Labour Party. It is the policy of several countries in Europe and, indeed, of the European Economic Community. My hon. Friend can feel satisfied that he has widespread support for what he has just said. In reply to the early part of the supplementary question, if my hon. Friend has any particular cases which he would like investigated perhaps he will send details of them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will reflect that remarks such as "even Reigate" are well up to his normal standard and, before he dwells too long on the future in the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), which I am sure will be a long one, think about his own past and the fact that during the time when he wielded enormous influence as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition this country's standing in the world and its standards deteriorated.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I did not even refer to Yeovil. The deterioration of standards—economic, social and many others—was greeted by the results of the General Election this year. In the spirit of the eve-of-recess bonhomie which inspires the whole House, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman in relation to his reference to standards that the standard of the Conservative Front Bench would be better if he were still there.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether this point of order comes within your purview, Mr. Speaker, or that of the Leader of the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter came to my notice this morning. In the last quarter of an hour I have met the Chairman and Secretary of the IPU and promised to look urgently into the matter.

In regard to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), I would inform the hon. Gentleman that I am concerned about these matters and knew of them. The extent to which I have any jurisdiction over accommodation in the other place is a matter of doubt, but it is a matter that is being considered by me as well as by the Leader of the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may have come to your notice that the Secretary of State for Industry recently announced in a Written Answer that Government aid to the extent of £4·95 million would be given to the Meriden Co-operative. The figure of £4·95 million is just below the £5 million for which the Government must seek the approval of the House.

That is not a matter for the Chair.

May I raise a new point of order, Mr. Speaker? It relates to a manœuvre which is being used to get round the proper usage of Parliament in looking after taxpayers' money. If this matter is not the responsibility of the Chair, whose responsibility is it? On the evidence that we have just heard, it is palpably a manœuvre aimed at getting round the proper rules of the House.

It is certainly not a matter for the Chair to judge how the Government or Opposition conduct their business. They must fight it out between them. It is not a matter for the Chair to rule on these matters. So far as I know, nothing has happened contrary to the Standing Orders of the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We fully accept that it is not a matter for the Chair, but, since this matter has been drawn to the attention of the House, and, in particular, to the Leader of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement tomorrow before we begin the Adjournment debate so that the House may be apprised of the full situation?

As the position stands at the moment, the amount does not exceed £5 million, and, therefore, under legislation passed by the Conservative Government it does not need to come to the House. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that if there is any question of its going up to £5 million or exceeding it, certainly it will come to the House of Commons.

Will the Leader of the House take up the point mentioned by my Friend, namely, that this is being done in two jumps and that the total will be over £5 million? Does not that in itself mean that the matter should come before the House?

The only amount of money to which the Government have agreed is below £5 million. Therefore, it does not need to come to the House of Commons under legislation passed by the Conservative Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheating!"] If the Government make more money available which will take the figure over £5 million, it will come to Parliament; otherwise it cannot be made available.

rose—

Mr. Short—statement.