asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards the proposals contained in the publication entitled "Black Paper on Education ", a copy of which is in his possession.

:I welcome discussion on educational issues but 1 have not found the Black Paper helpful or constructive.

Bearing in mind that one of the contributors to the Black Paper is herself a committed Socialist, does not the Secretary of State think that this indicates that comprehensive education is not always or necessarily in the best interests of the working-class child and that his Department has a case to answer which is not answered by the scorn it has poured on the authors of the Black Paper so far?

The answer to the criticisms levelled at the comprehensive system is to be found in the experience of the comprehensive schools themselves, which have provided such a successful service to our children for many years.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Black Paper would take us on a backward course from the reality of education today? Does he not agree, for instance, that examinations at the ages of 7, 11 and 14 are irrelevant to education today and that, in particular, the reading examination at the age of 7 is totally unnecessary because every teacher at a primary school knows that reading is listened to daily by teachers? Does he not agree that a continuous daily assessment cannot possibly be supplanted by an examination at the age of 7?

Yes, Sir. I believe that the dogmatic proposal for examinations at the ages of 7, 11 and 14 takes no account whatever of the fact that individual children develop at different rates.

Is the Minister aware that last week the Black Paper was the sixth best selling paperback in the country, something which has never occurred to an educational document before? Whatever the Minister says, does not that show the degree of public discontent? Does he agree that, since practically all newspapers and periodicals reviewed and talked about the Black Paper at length and are still doing so, there is massive discontent? For a Government who talk about participation, might a participatory discussion and analysis of what the Black Paper says be to the advantage of the Government and the children of this country?

I have already said that I welcome discussion on these matters. The interest which the Black Paper has attracted is a symptom of the fact that very large numbers of people are intensely interested in education, and the whole House would welcome that. What I find at fault is that the Black Paper gets the whole problem out of perspective. It takes no account of the tremendous achievements of the majority of our teachers who do devoted work of a very high standard, which is rising year by year. So far as it identifies real problems. the solutions that the Black Paper proposes are totally irrelevant to those problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many graduates completed teacher training after graduation each year from 1970–74 ; and if he is satisfied with the present trend.

The numbers successfully completing postgraduate courses from 1970 to 1973 were 6,077, 7,031, 8,519 and 9,658. The estimated figure for 1974 is 9,500. I am concerned that the numbers of graduates entering training in 1974 and applying for entry in 1975 have fallen.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Can he make any comment about the statement in the Black Paper that very few good graduates who are trained find employment in comprehensive schools? Presumably these graduates are employed in comprehensive schools.

Some of them are employed in comprehensive schools and some are still employed in selective schools. What I am concerned about is that in the past year or two the numbers have fallen. I hope that the new salary scales and better career prospects arising from the implementation of the Houghton Report will lead to an increase in recruitment, particularly in the shortage subjects such as science and mathematics.

For the sake of maintaining a fair balance of resources in teacher training and throughout higher education, will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the growing alarm in the universities that they are in danger of receiving second-class treatment, a feeling which is heightened by the difficulties being experienced by university teachers in reaching a just settlement of their claim?

These fears are not justified. The Houghton Report made the proposal that there should be broad comparability between salaries in universities and in other sectors of higher education. I accept that in principle. I shall be answering more detailed Questions on this later.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities about the level of expenditure on the provision of school books and equipment during the coming year.

The annual consultations between the Government and the local authority associations over rate support grant included a detailed examination of prospective levels of expenditure for each local authority service in England and Wales, including education. For this purpose, expenditure on books and equipment is included among non-teaching costs. My right hon. Friend took part in the consultations last year which preceded the 1975–76 settlement.

The Minister is responsible for providing the House and the country with adequate educational statistics. Is he aware that recent changes in local government accounting make it more difficult for those who are interested in the provision of school books to find out the true position? Is he aware that some education experts think that the change has in part been made to disguise the chaotic position in the provision of school books in certain areas?

I give the assurance that there is no attempt to disguise the true position. In our discussions with local authorities and, as far as I am aware, in discussions between Members and local authorities, the authorities are only too ready to give all the information they can about expenditure on books and equipment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities are cutting back drastically on the supply of books in their schools? Will he impress upon education authorities that the two things that no education authority should cut, whatever else it may cut, are the numbers of teachers and the supply of books?

I am glad to have that comment from my hon. Friend. The rate support grant settlement allowed for a modest improvement in education expenditure in real terms. We gave no grounds for any authority's cutting either its teacher quota or the expenditure on books and equipment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters of protest against the phasing out of direct grant schools he has received since his statement on 11th March.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received objecting to his proposals concerning direct grant schools ; and what has been the nature of his replies.

My right hon. Friend has received about 650 letters from individuals and organisations. The replies explain that the Government's decision follows from their commitment to end selection for secondary education.

Will the lion. Gentleman realise how widespread have been the alarm and despondency among the thousands of parents all over the country who have heard about his circular of 1st May spelling out in detail how the direct grant schools will be forced to close or be taken into the public sector? Does he accept that those who seek a disciplined and hard-working schooling for their children are being forced to accept at short notice a complete change of their whole planning of their children's education? Will he also accept that some of the details in that circular are not yet even worked out to give a proper reassurance to the parents and the staffs of those schools, especially teachers who are faced —[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]

Order. A supplementary question of this length is not tolerable.

We set out clearly in our election manifestos our proposals with regard to direct grant schools. Since then we have had a good number of consultations and negotiations. I do not believe that any governing body can be unaware of Government policy. We are not anxious to close any school. We are inviting schools to come into the maintained sector. It is the system of direct grant schools to which we are opposed, because it would perpetuate selection.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the mere asking for a declaration of intent from the direct grant schools will, in the view of many Labour Members, make the work of many local authorities which want to get on with the job of comprehensive education more difficult, and that from that point of view he is being too soft in the matter? What guarantees has he that these declarations of intent will be honoured?

We must find the correct balance. I do not think that we have left any direct grant school's governing body in any doubt that we are determined to end the direct grant system. On the other hand, we have responsibility to the individual children and their educational interests. That is always taken into account by the present Government. Therefore, we are asking for a statement in principle. In my negotiations with the local authorities they have appreciated the definite statements we have made.

Is not the Minister's decision on this matter blatantly political rather than educational? Is he aware of the deep distress that the decision has caused to many of my constituents with children at the Brighton and Hove High? In view of the very high standard of education at the direct grant schools, will he, even now, seek to persuade his right hon. Friend to alleviate the distress by changing his mind?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that education is much more than the passing of examinations. It is about life in the community. In the words of the independent Donnison Report, the direct grant schools are more exclusive than the maintained grammar schools. We want to get rid of selection. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should review our decision would go against our genuine belief that the education of all our children depends on abolishing selection in the secondary sector.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have decided to begin phasing out at the end of August next year direct grant for those schools which do not wish to come within the maintained system? How will the phasing-out take place, and at what pace?

A copy of the circular letter of 1st May which has gone to all direct grant schools is in the Library, and I invite my hon. Friend's attention to the details there. I confirm that we intend to begin the phasing out in September of next year.

By what authority did the Secretary of State send out this nine-page demand to the governors of direct grant schools? He was threatening them that they must bow to his will, without any authority from the House, under regulations which have not been laid before the House and which the House has had no opportunity of passing upon. Does not this constitute a breach of the rule of law and contempt of the House?

The hon. Gentleman should not get carried away by reading the leaders in the Daily Telegraph.The truth is that the letter was sent to the schools as a direct result of negotiations we have had with the Direct Grant Schools Committee, which asked for full details of my right hon. Friend's intentions. It is now well aware of his intention to carry out this policy, and it asked for details as to how it would be done. There is no question of threats or anything else. It is a clear statement of the Government's policy.

In view of that very unsatisfactory reply, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your ruling on whether the document constitutes a contempt of the House?

:If the hon. Gentleman is raising a serious point, perhaps he will raise it at the end of Questions.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I shall ask your permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment, Mr. Speaker.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in formulating his plans for phasing out the direct grant schools, he will bear in mind the needs of parents seeking denominational education and Service families requiring boarding education.

Details of our proposals for phasing out the direct grant arrangements were sent to the schools and local education authorities on 1st May. They make clear our hope that as many of the schools as possible, including denominational schools and boarding schools, will enter the maintained system as non-selective schools.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of these parents want the schools to remain as they are?

I am aware that most of those parents choose this kind of education. I can understand parents making that choice but I have never been able to understand why they insist that children of average and below-average ability ought not to be educated alongside their own children.

Whatever the hon. Gentleman's views about direct grant schools—perhaps he will drop that argument for a moment—may I ask him at least to accept, and this comes from someone representing a Service consti- tuency, that there is a huge problem particularly with boys whose parents reside overseas, and not only in the forces? Is he aware that the result of his policy will be to reduce boarding-school provision to a dangerously low level? Does he wish such children to go to private schools? If not, will he state positively rather than negatively what his policy is?

We have no evidence that there will be a reduction in the number of boarding places for the children of Service men. We are in negotiation with the denominational schools and the boarding schools about the future. We are concerned about children who have real boarding need. We do not think that our present policy will affect them.

asked the Secretary, of State for Education and Science, following his recommendation to local education authorities, that fees should be increased to 20 per cent. above those for the academic year 1972–73, if he will indicate the local authorities whose fees for adult classes for 1974–75 were already in excess of this figure, and where the increase proposed for 1975–76 will subtantially exceed this percentage.

This is a matter within the discretionary powers of local education authorities, and I do not collect detailed information on it. I understand that about 25 per cent. of authorities may have raised evening class fees by more than 20 per cent. between 1972 and 1974. 1 have no information about the decisions that authorities have been or will be taking in respect of increases from September 1975.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that we are likely to see the end of adult education in Britain within two or three years owing to the increases that will result not only from his letter to the local authorities but from their own needs, which will militate against many adults taking advantage of the service? Is it not particularly bad that the Government should adopt their present course in view of the Russell Report, and do not these matters again illustrate the need to reallocate resources away from defence expenditure, for example, to education?

I do not think that further education fees can be totally exempted from the effects of inflation any more than can any other aspect of our national life. My hon. Friend should bear in mind that the fees currently charged for evening classes throughout the country almost universally represent a very small percentage of the true cost of the courses. I am advised that the current average is about £2 a term and that these classes arc extremely good value for money.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the fees are, as he indicated, ridiculously low, and that if they were increased to the 20 per cent. recommended this would still amount to a reduction in real terms?

As I explained in my original reply, this is a matter for the discretion of local authorities and there is variation. I felt it necessary to advise that there should be some upgrading by those authorities which had not done so. I propose for the future to look at this matter annually, because I think that the level of fees must take some account of the general movement of prices. I still very much favour the system which has existed for many years of highly subsidised evening classes, and I hope that no one on either side would ask local authorities materially to depart from that principle.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of the numbers of young people under the age of 18 years obtaining day release from employment for further education for the latest dates available, with the percentage of those in employment, together with similar figures for recent years giving in each case the percentages of young men and boys, women and girls.

The numbers aged under 18 in England and Wales who received day or block release from employment in November were: 171,022 boys and 48,010 girls in 1971; 162,834 boys and 45,974 girls in 1972; and 152,949 boys and 38,733 girls in 1973, the latest available year. In each of the three years these numbers represent approximately 35 per cent. of the employed boys in the age group and 10 per cent. of the employed girls.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we still have a long way to go in this matter? Will he again look earnestly at the point I have made before on the matter of announcing at a reasonably early date the right to compulsory day release, particularly in view of the effect of the education cuts on this sector?

I agree that the figures are most unsatisfactory for boys and disgracefully low for girls, and I have had a number of consultations with interested bodies about the matter. I am at the moment considering a number of papers presented to me at my request, including a most valuable paper from the education committee of the TUC.

It is not practical to think in terms of jumping quickly to a situation of universal compulsory day release because of the economic constraints, but we are considering whether there are ways of making a modest start on a pilot basis. This matter is being actively considered in the Department at the moment.

As the latest set of figures was for 1973, is the Minister doing anything to speed up the collection of figures throughout his Ministry, which has always been, to my mind, one or two years behind what it should be?

I do not think that we are all that far behind. We shall shortly have figures for the end of 1974. I shall look at the point, but we have to collect statistics from all over the country and we want to get the answer right.

The percentage of girls securing day release facilities is so low as to warrant investigation by the Equal Opportunities Commission as soon as that body is set up. Will my right hon. Friend agree to make a reference of the case to the commission as soon as the Sex Discrimination Bill becomes law?

I shall not commit myself on the latter suggestion except, at this point, to note it. I agree that the figures are very low. The basic problem is that those who get day release at the moment do so for specific craft apprenticeship or similar systems of organised training. We have not seen the progress we would wish to see towards the more general release of boys and girls for general education purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a supplementary grant to the Arts Council in respect of the burden of VAT on the living arts.

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the burden of VAT was imposed on the living arts by his Government. The present Government's grant-in-aid to the Arts Council for 1975–76 takes account of VAT as the liability for this was known by the council's clients when they applied for subsidies or financial guarantees for the current year.

Does not the Minister agree that the costs of running and maintaining the living arts and the theatre are now approximately double the increase in grant that he has given to the Arts Council? Is not his ineffectiveness in failing to persuade the Chancellor to give the living arts relief from value added tax sufficient cause for his own resignation and the appointment of someone like Lord Goodman who can at least tell the Prime Minister where he gets off?

I do not think that Lord Goodman is likely to agree with the hon. Gentleman. On the point of substance that the hon. Gentleman raised, I must point out to him that the figure granted to the Arts Council was precisely the figure it asked for. If it feels at any time that the sum which it has been granted is inadequate, no doubt it will be letting me know. Neither the Arts Council nor anyone else, other than the hon. Gentleman, is considering my resignation. Certainly I am not.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the present grants by the Arts Council to the living arts are sufficient to maintain existing standards in spite of the imposiiton of VAT and the increased cost of living? If these various bodies find that they are unable to maintain those standards, will my hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to any appeal that may come to him?

Yes, we are watching the position very closely. It is, of course, true that the incidence of inflation on the arts is severe. We are keeping in very close touch with the problem and if we and the Arts Council reach the conclusion that the matter should be looked at again I am sure that my right hon. Friend, in consultation with myself, will be ready to do so.

Irrespective of who is to blame for the present situation, is the Minister aware that it is becoming increasingly pointless for schools to teach Shakespeare, Milton and other classics when the children cannot see live productions of these works?

I do not think that is true. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind to show that there are not enough performances of Shakespeare, I shall be glad to know about it. However, from my experience I would have thought that the number of performances of Shakespeare in the last year had increased rather than declined.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for amending the Education Act in respect of religious education.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on the admission of the director of education for the county, a large number of schools in Leicestershire are in breach of the Act as it affects religious education? No doubt this goes for other schools in the country. Such schools are in breach of the Act because they consider it not to be in tune with contemporary reality. This is causing considerable concern among a minority of parents because there is no religious education—

Order. The hon. Member must ask questions and not make a speech.

Does the hon. Gentleman consider that this is a satisfactory situation? Might it not be better to amend the law so as to have a religious education syllabus which is accepted by schools throughout the country?

We are aware that there are difficulties in some schools about the morning assembly because of the lack of accommodation and so on. We are also aware that there are certain difficulties in other schools. The inspectorate is in constant touch with the schools. We see no reason at present for amending the law.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy toward the proposals of the Expenditure Committee on grants for 16-year-olds at school.

The Government's response to these proposals will be set out in a White Paper as soon as possible.

Does not my hon. Friend think that Government Departments like his own should take reports of the Expenditure Committee rather more seriously than his Department has taken this one? Is he aware that the raising of the school leaving age represented a real cut in the standard of living for the poorest families? Does he realise that the Government have a responsibility to do something about this?

I certainly take on board what my hon. Friend says. He will know that this is a sector of education in which I am particularly concerned. Before the Committee reported we set up a fact-finding survey. We are now considering the results of that survey. I assure my hon. Friend that my Department takes the report very seriously indeed. We hope to publish the White Paper before the Summer Recess.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland a person aged 16 can legally marry and that we regard such a person as an adult? Is it not therefore absurd to try to classify these people as children? Is it not time that they received a grant in the same way as adults?

That is a different matter from the original Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a state- ment about the effects on the proposed school building programme of expenditure cuts contained in the Budget.

I am considering carefully how the savings required of education in 1976–77 can be made with least detriment to the service and to those most in need. I shall try to inform local education authorities by the end of June of their allocations for school building starts in that year.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the difficulty with such cuts, apart from their impact, is their effect on plans for months and years ahead? Will he therefore help to end some of the uncertainties, particularly in the faster-growing parts of the country like Warwickshire and my constituency in particular, by giving an assurance that they will be able to retain the kind of priorities they now have?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the allocation for 1975–76, which for Warwickshire was just over £1,750,000, is not affected by the Chancellor's statement. What my right hon. Friend has required of spending Departments is some reduction of projected spending for 1976–77. We have to give careful thought to how to do this with the least detriment to the services. I shall make the allocations for the school building programmes for the year at the earliest possible moment. I originally hoped to do it at about the end of June.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is now his policy towards the introduction of a voucher system in education.

As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 23rd January last—[Vol. 885, c. 11.]—he sees no merit in, and serious objections to, the voucher schemes which have been propounded in this country in recent years.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the introduction of the voucher scheme could restore parental choice? Will he give an assurance that if a local education authority introduced a pilot scheme with the voucher system he would not do anything to stop it?

The hon. Gentleman talks about parental choice. We have to face reality, which is that up to 85 per cent. of our children will have no choice at all. The voucher system is seen by the Government as being socially divisive. On principle we are against it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the voucher scheme is regarded throughout the education world as being anti-educational? Does he further agree that it is one more belated attempt to buy privilege by a select group of parents and children and is, therefore, to the detriment of education and children generally?

Yes. I would agree with that. It would be unduly competitive as between schools. [Interruption.]Education is not to be sold across the counter like groceries. It is far more important.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations over the pay claims for university lecturers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now make a statement on the progress of his talks with the Association of University Teachers on the salaries of university teachers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the pay claim submitted by the Association of University Teachers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made with the AUT's pay claim.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave yesterday to similar Questions by a number of hon. Members.

As these pay negotiations are deadlocked, will the right hon. Gentleman again consider taking the case to arbitration? If that should happen, would the Government abide by a decision of the arbitration body?

I certainly do not rule out a reference to arbitration in so far as the case relates to a new settlement of university teachers' salaries from October 1975. What I would rule out is any back-dating to October 1974 because that would be a clear breach of the 12-months rule, which is a crucial element in the social contract.

Would my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the General Secretary of the AUT warned last weekend of the crisis situation developing? Will he particularly comment on the fact that a number of restrictive practices could begin to operate in the next couple of months, including those concerning the marking of examination papers?

I do not regard this as a crisis situation. The Houghton Report recommended substantial and overdue increases in pay to staff engaged in higher education outside the university sector. That has created an anomaly between them and the universities. The report also recommended that for the future there should be broad comparability between the sectors. I accept that in principle. We have been in intensive negotiations for some weeks as to how that should apply with effect from October 1975. University staff should regard this situation as giving them an opportunity for a much larger increase in October 1975 than most people will get at that time.

I do not regard it as a crisis. Any form of militant action—I do not think there will be very much ; the reports coming through today say that it is very uneven—would be quite irrelevant and unhelpful. I do not need convincing of the need for a substantial increase. I accept it. But no one will convince me that it should breach the 12-months' rule. That is quite out of the question.

Since the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the present situation is unjust and that university teachers should get parity, and since the Houghton Report gave teachers and polytechnic lecturers an increase at a stroke, why cannot university teachers get the same increase at a stroke this year, in one go?

As I have told the House twice in the last few moments, because that would be a breach of the 12-months' rule which is a crucial element in the social contract.

Does not the Secretary of State, having accepted that there is an anomaly here, about which he has been very frank with the House, understand that many university teachers and those who have not necessarily been uncritical of them in the past regard the actions of many others in this field as breaching the social contract and find it difficult to sustain a position in which apparently the contract is rigidly applied to university teachers but not to others? Is it not incumbent upon the right hon. Gentleman to look yet again at what is understandably a difficult situation to see whether the strong feelings which have been aroused in universities cannot at least in part be met?

I accept that there is an anomalous position in the pay of university staffs compared with the pay in other areas of higher education, but, after all, before the Houghton award there was an anomalous position the other way round. Anomalies occur in wages and salaries through hout the whole of our society. The appropriate time to adjust the anomaly is 12 months after the last settlement, which for the universities will be in October 1975.

To reiterate what I said yesterday, we are negotiating now for the element in the settlement which will involve a catching-up operation with staff outside universities. We propose that there shall be a second element in the settlement representing a cost-of-living increase which we shall necessarily have to negotiate nearer the time.

As the Houghton proposals were outside the social contract terms, why does not the Minister accept the need to bring university staffs into a comparable position? Is he aware that university lecturers will shortly be eligible for family income supplement and that his bungling is causing senior people to leave their jobs? Why has he not set up an independent arbitration, and why did he say in reply to an earlier supplementary question that he would not accept the arbitration results unless they met his own criteria? Is not that prejudging the issue?

I made absolutely clear that I do not rule out arbitration in relation to the settlement with effect from October 1975, but I will not be party to a clear breach of the social contract which would be involved in any back-dating of a settlement to October 1974, on which date the university staffs had an increase in pay. As to the Houghton award being outside the contract, the Government—I understand with the full support of both sides of the House—identified the teachers in the public sector as being a special case, just as they identified nurses and one or two other exceptional groups. Special cases by their nature have to be limited special cases and cannot be quoted by everyone else. If they are quoted by everyone else, such claims have to be resisted. It is in that sense that I am resisting the claim for back-dating to 1974 and will continue to do so.

Is the Minister aware that as I represent a university town I have had a great many letters, which are extremely well argued and well written—as I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that they would be—arguing strongly that the Secretary of State should get a move on? The whole House recognises his determination to see that the social contract is observed, and we support him in that, but the university teachers say that they suffer from a relativity disadvantage and they ask him to get a move on. We welcome what he has said today, but the university teachers are asking for an answer to be given more quickly than he suggests.

I am delighted to learn that the letters are well written. That reinforces my high level of confidence in the university system I have been getting a move on. We have been doing just that. We entered into communication with the AUT and the other parties concerned within a week or two of publication of the Houghton Report. The first meeting of the negotiating committee was in February and there have been intensive negotiations since. There is no question of delay on our part. The simple point on which I claim and expect support from both sides of the House is that there should not be a breach of the social contract in the way that some members of the profession are suggesting.

Surely the Secretary of State is being both complacent and obstinate in the face of an unprecedented crisis in the universities. Is there not a duty upon him as Secretary of State to seek to bring this crisis to an end by allowing the claim to go to arbitration straight away before bitterness is caused throughout the university world?

I agree that I am being obstinate for what seem to me to be good reasons, but I do not accept that I am being complacent. It is because of the understandable disquiet in the university world that we started as early as we did the preliminary negotiations for a settlement which can take place only next October. We entered into those discussions willingly at an early date so as to reassure university teachers that we intended a substantial settlement in October which would include two elements, first a catching-up element which we can negotiate now and on which we can go to arbitration if that appears to be the right course, and secondly, a cost-of-living element which will be negotiated nearer the date.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Wales.

:I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend visited Wales in March and hopes to do so again soon.

When the Prime Minister visits Wales, will it be apposite for him to say a word or two on devolution, about which we have heard little lately? Would it not be of interest and importance to the people of Wales who want to know what progress is being made and to English people who are concerned to know about the impact of devolution upon them?

I imagine that when my right hon. Friend goes to Wales for discussions with the Welsh TUC, as he did in the case of Scotland, devolution will certainly be discussed. A short time ago we had a two-day debate in the House on devolution.

When the Prime Minister next goes to Wales, will the Lord President ask him to take note that the Welsh TUC, which met a week ago last Saturday, once again came out overwhelmingly in favour of a Parliament for Wales with legislative powers and powers relating to industrial and economic affairs, thus reflecting the majority opinion of the Welsh people?

I am aware of the discussions which took place last week, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government's White Paper of last September in which they gave a firm undertaking to introduce a Bill to create a Welsh Assembly. That will be done towards the end of this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that 90 per cent. of the Welsh electorate are opposed to separatism? If the Prime Minister comes to Wales, will he take note that the news yesterday of the closures in the steel industry has caused great anxiety in the Welsh valleys and other areas?

I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I agree with him entirely on separatism. That is why we made our statement last September, and that is the policy we intend to implement. The Government are concerned about the imminent closures and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be answering a Private Notice Question today on that subject.

asked the Prime Minister what steps he has in view to extend the Explanatory Memoranda on Bills to embrace the financial and manpower implications for local authorities separately from those of any implications for the rest of the public sector, in order that this House may be better apprised as to local authority spending and rate demands.

I have been asked to reply.

Thanks to the hon. Member's initiative, the Explanatory and Financial Memoranda on Government Bills will in future separately distinguish the estimates of the financial and manpower implications for local authorities from those for the rest of the public sector.

I am most grateful to the Prime Minister and I ask the Lord President to transmit my thanks to him for agreeing to this important development. However meritorious the content of any Bill, there must be a sharp awareness in the House of its impact locally in terms of manpower and rating. Will the Lord President undertake to have discussions through the usual channels on the format of the extended Explanatory Memoranda, which could have implications for money resolutions and Bills?

Yes, I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has had an exchange of letters with the Prime Minister on this matter and that my right hon. Friend has taken a keen personal interest in it. The Prime Minister is, of course, responsible for the manpower implications. The hon. Gentleman has done the House and the country a service by making this suggestion.

I am encouraged by the response to my hon. Friend's Question, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case for presenting a manpower budget as well as a financial statement once a year covering the whole of the public sector?

That is a useful idea which I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for Industry in Glasgow on 13th April on industrial questions represents Government policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for Industry in Glasgow on 13th April 1975 concerning industrial policy represents Government policy.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) on 17th April.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in earlier answers about this speech he said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry had the right of dissent on EEC matters? Does that right of dissent extend to the Industry Bill? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Industry is now proposing compulsory powers of disclosure of confidential information that clearly differ from the pledge given in this House on 25th February by the Prime Minister?

I am not aware of anything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has said which conflicts with the Bill now before the Committee.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to point out that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was misleading the electorate when he said that were we to remain part of the Common Market we would lose control of North Sea oil?

As I pointed out last week, fortunately I do not have to answer for the speeches of dissenting Ministers. That is what the right of dissent means. It is the right to put forward their point of view and their interpretation of facts when speaking in the country. It means nothing more and nothing less than that.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the nonsense of hearing the Secretary of State for Industry and now the Secretary of State for Scotland saying in Scotland that we cannot apply our regional policies if we remain within the EEC when at the same time we are putting through legislation in this House, to apply both sides of the border, that is based on the opposite assumption?

Neither my right hon. Friend nor I would agree that we are not free to carry out our own regional policies, but my two right hon. Friends are entitled to put their point of view on this matter.

Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said, it is clear from what we are now being told by the Secretary of State for Industry and his Ministers that the words of the Prime Minister on the Industry Bill are being flouted and that his clear undertaking to the House is now being at least removed by the Secretary of State for Industry. Will the Leader of the House warn his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he comes back of what is happening and suggest to him that now is the moment to bring the Secretary of State for Industry to hook and, on this occasion, into line with Government policy?

In the absence of the Prime Minister I keep a pretty close eye on what is happening. I have seen no conflict whatever between what the Secretary of State for Industry is saying and what appears in the Industry Bill. However, I shall consider the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) is talking utter rubbish in relation to the Industry Bill and that there is no difference between that public Bill and what the Government are putting through in the House? The position is perfectly understandable and has been explained by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

As I have said twice already, I am not aware of any conflict between what the Prime Minister has said and what appears in the Bill or what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has said, but certainly I shall look into the point that has been made.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects to make his next ministerial broadcast.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) on 20th March.

I sympathise with the Prime Minister for wanting to spend so much of his time abroad rather than face the problems at home, and particularly his incompetent and squabbling Ministers, but will he not stay at home long enough to go on television simply to show us that he is still around, even if he no longer has the authority to deal with the economic mess that his policies are creating?

The Prime Minister, as the House knows, is at the Commonwealth Conference. On his way back he has been invited by President Ford to stop in Washington and to have discussions with him. I should have thought that the whole House would have given him leave of absence for that purpose. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I would point out that the Labour Party, under the Prime Minister's leadership, has won four of the last five elections. When the next election comes, whenever it is, the hon. Gentleman will certainly discover that the Prime Minister is about.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever our right hon. Friend is doing abroad he has certainly not gone for a yachting holiday? What is more important is that if anyone could be accused of gallivanting about the country or elsewhere, it is the leader of the Opposition. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Lady seems to be taking every opportunity to get out of this place and that even when she is in it she cannot muster sufficient forces to oppose the Government, so much so that last night on the debate on unemployment the Opposition were so split that they could not even force a vote?

I think that we must be courteous to the right hon. Lady. She has got to get round and get known in the country.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is already doing very well in the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends would willingly assent to giving the Prime Minister leave of absence? In fact, we would not notice his absence very much at all. Further, will the Lord President arrange for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to make a broadcast on behalf of the Government, as he alone is able effectively to give voice to the Government's current policies, which are infernally damaging to the country?

I do not think that it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to make that broadcast.

Will my right hon. Friend urge the Prime Minister to make a ministerial broadcast when he returns from the Commonwealth Conference in order that he may explain to the British people the overwhelming and resounding support of all the Prime Ministers at the conference for our continued membership of the EEC?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a considerable speaking programme on the referendum when he returns. I have no doubt that he will make just that point on many occasions.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his talks with TUC leaders on 21st April.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his meeting with the TUC on 21st April.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend met TUC leaders at the TUC-Labour Party Liaison Committee meeting on 21st April, one of a regular series of informal meetings held each month to review matters of common interest, including the general state of the economy. We discussed the recent Budget measures and reviewed the operation of the social contract. There was complete agreement about the continuing importance of the social contract and a re-emphasis of the need for firm adherence to the pay guidelines.

How do the Government expect moderate trade unionists, whether they are on the railways or in the universities, to respect the wage guidelines in the social contract when the Government repeatedly connive at settlements in the public sector way beyond the guidelines? Is it not time that the Government began to assert their own policies in their own backyard?

Certainly the Government have had problems in the public sector. I answered Questions on this matter last week. I explained that the Civil Service pay settlement was within the guidelines. The difference between public sector and private sector settlements has not been all that great.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the hope that is felt on this side of the House that justice will be seen to be done as regards the railway pay negotiations?

I hope very much that the settlement will not breach the social contract and the TUC guidelines. The matter has now gone to arbitration, and in those circumstances I think that it would be improper for me to comment further.

Will the Lord President now answer the question which I asked him last week and which he then dodged? Is the TUC happy at the Chancellor's use of monetary policies and his control of demand at such a level as to create 1 million unemployed this winter, which is his target?

It is estimated that the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget will add 20,000 to the unemployment figure, and we regret that very much indeed. The TUC understands the Chancellor's Budget. This was explained to the TUC in great detail at the meeting to which I have referred. We have good will and understanding with the TUC in these matters. It is a pity that we do not have the good will of the Conservative Party in trying to solve the country's problems.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State whether he will make a statement on the latest forecast by the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation of the consequences of the corporation's current trading position.

At a meeting yesterday between the British Steel Corporation and the TUC's Steel Committee, the corporation put forward proposals which were then published and which, I understand, would involve a loss of between 16,500 and 20,000 jobs this year. Following a meeting between the TUC's Steel Committee and myself, which also took place yesterday, I have today written to the chairman asking him to explore the corporation's proposals fully with the unions, taking full account of their views and any alternatives which they propose and making it clear that the Government must know the outcome of these discussions in good time before any final decisions are reached.

To meet the effect of the present recession on the corporation's cash flow and to enable it to maintain the momentum of its capital investment programme, the Government are seeking by legislation now before the House, published on 1st May, to increase the corporation's borrowing limit by £750 million.

Will the Secretary of State say whether we can look forward to an early debate on this subject in view of the wide public concern—concern which his reply this afternoon will have done nothing to allay—about the whole relationship of the Government to the British Steel Corporation? Secondly, will he explain why he has not chosen to amend the financial duties of the corporation and come to Parliament for a change in the present situation whereby the corporation has to earn an 8 per cent. return on net assets employed? Thirdly, how can he reconcile his claim in the House a few weeks ago that he had saved 13,500 jobs with today's announcement relating to the loss of between 16,500 and 20,000 jobs over the next few months?

I made no such announcement. I replied to the hon. Gentleman's Question by giving the figure which the corporation put to the unions. I am surprised—or perhaps not so surprised—that he should mock our attempts to safeguard jobs.

The hon. Gentleman's other questions are matters for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I should greatly welcome a debate on the steel industry, because I believe that, in the public interest, matters which previously have been handled by private negotiation between Ministers and chairmen of corporations should be brought more fully into the open so that everybody can understand what goes on.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all hon. Members with steel constituencies have for several weeks been pressing the Government for a debate? Will he bring his influence to bear on the Government and the Leader of the House so that we may have an early debate on this important matter?

The Leader of the House knows full well that I should be very happy for a debate to take place. I understand the concern of hon. Members with steel constituencies and other Members who are more broadly concerned with matters of public policy in relation to the nationalised industries and their sponsoring Ministers.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the British steel industry was nationalised by British Governments in 1949, denationalised in 1959 and renationalised in 1967—and that the end result of all that, in the chairman's words yesterday in his letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry, is that we have a steel industry which is out of date and whose equipment is obsolescent and obsolete? Would he care to say whether this is the result of the two-party game played over the last 25 years? Does he not realise that what is wrong with British steel, as with British industry generally, is the British system of government?

No, Sir. But I should draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the investment programme in the steel industry is now going forward at a rate of £8 million a week of new investment and that the present Government in their examination of the 10-year strategy are not holding back on that new investment. We have been trying to review the impact of the situation on communities which have no other opportunities for employment. I believe that to be the duty of any Minister, and of any Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement by the Chairman of BSC that he is in favour of up to 20,000 redundancies has caused dismay among people at all levels throughout steel-making areas who earn their living in the steel industry? Will he convey to the chairman, in the strongest possible terms, the fact that it has been our experience in recent years that, following fluctuations in production, trade has picked up again and shortages have then developed? This has meant an increase in steel imports, and it has also meant that as a result some of our people have been put on short-time working or have been made unemployed? Does he not agree that this process should not be repeated? I urge my right hon. Friend not to proceed with these redundancies, but to consider alternative policies, such as the stocking of steel and the sharing of work to keep the labour force together so that it can produce the steel in Britain for the time when trade again picks up?

My hon. Friend, who follows these matters closely, will remember that during the last steel recession in 1971–72 the BSC closed a good deal of its iron and steel capacity, including the plants at Skinningrove, Cargo Fleet and Redbourne. Those closures were important not only because they contributed to the steel shortage that occurred, but because they also led to a large increase in steel imports. Therefore, taking a long-term view, I have to bear those matters in mind. I confirm that the reports in the Press by the Chairman of BSC were correct and that they spread dismay. Although I am in favour of people speaking their minds—as I do—the morale and confidence of people who create the nation's steel is a most priceless asset and must not be squandered.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects redundancies to happen? Is he aware that steel workers in Scotland are coming to the conclusion that they are now being manipulated in the bitter battle that is taking place between the Secretary of State for Industry and the chairman of a nationalised board?

My information is that steel workers in Scotland are glad that the statements about redundancy are being announced publicly. I have asked for assurances from the chairmen that nothing will be done until we have time to consider them. But consultations are now proceeding with individual unions, and the BSC will meet the TUC's Steel Committee on 19th May. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will convey to his constituents in his steel industries that those concerned should not suffer because of decisions which have not been properly considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the specific proposals by the Chairman of the BSC are more savage and economically ĩ than even the practices of the private steel industry before nationalisation?—and that is saying quite something. Is the Secretary of State aware that there is not a cat in hell's chance of steel workers in Scotland accepting these proposals, and will he say how the Chairman of BSC proposes to implement them?

It is best that discussions on these matters should be held in public, and by correspondence, if need be, between myself and the chairman, and that the House should have an early opportunity to discuss these matters. As for my hon. Friend's anxieties about the fear that the present recession might be used to pre-empt the outcome of the closure review, I have asked Sir Monty Finniston for an absolutely clear assurance that he will not pre-empt the outcome of that review.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Scottish steel industry rationalised its production before the last instalment of nationalisation? In view of the impending dismissal of 4,000 Scottish steel workers proposed by Sir Monty Finniston, does he agree that this is a further argument for the setting-up of a Scottish steel corporation? Does he accept that, because of the loss of confidence in him, Sir Monty Finniston should be asked to resign forthwith? Finally, will the Secretary of State, together with his colleagues, consider the necessity of appointing a Minister for nationalised industries so that queries regarding these matters can be raised on the Floor of the House?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I must tell him candidly that the establishment of a Scottish steel industry—when that industry, like United Kingdom steel industry, would be controlled elsewhere—will not meet those problems. Under the Treaty of Paris the powers in respect of the steel industry were transferred in important respects. The best guarantee for the Scottish steel workers is that they should stay close to the steel workers in other parts of Britain and maintain their collective defence of their own interests.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the strenuous efforts being made by so many in Ebbw Vale to co-operate according to the Beswick Report timetable. Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who reluctantly accepted that report will not accept these proposals, that they will be clamouring for rationalisation at the top of British steel management and that they will be right to do so?

I am aware that there is a view held by many people in steel plants that there is some overmanning at headquarters. I have heard that argument put. However, in response to what my hon. Friend says, I make no apology for taking seriously, at a time of rising unemployment, the possibility that steel workers may be dismissed.

With this unceasing interference with industrial management, including that of the nationalised industries, does the Secretary of State think that he is grossly overrating his own abilities and, moreover, defeating the very objective which he has in mind of saving jobs?

As the right hon. Gentleman's own Government held up their investment programme for two years, drove the steel industry near to bankruptcy, and then handed power over to Brussels, he should not be speaking about that matter.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government lessen the human impact of necessary industrial change, where it is inevitable, by means of industrial retraining and the most generous redundancy payments? Will he say something about the effect of his announcement on the special steels division in Sheffield and the desirability of maintaining the present volume of investment there?

I am well aware of the special interest of my hon. Friend in the special steels division in Sheffield. He will know what efforts we have made to deal with this matter. I have maintained contact with those in Sheffield who are concerned with this, but there is no desire on the part of the Government to freeze the pattern of employment where history has left it. However, if we are to provide the possibility of shifting people from existing work there must be investment available to see that new work is there for them.

From the right hon. Gentleman's penultimate answer are we to take it that the Government officially regret that this country joined the European Coal and Steel Community?

No. I was describing the legal position under the Treaty of Paris.

The right hon. Gentleman has described the legal position as it arises under the Treaty of Rome. Will he say a word in praise of the fact that the steel industry is currently borrowing on favourable terms very nearly £100 million from the Community institutions? Would he equally be prepared to consider with the Secretary of State for Scotland the wisdom, in the perspectives there are for the steel industry in Scotland, of having immobilised the Hunterston peninsula from use for other profitable and employing purposes so as to reserve it for the steel industry?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman's questions do not derive directly from the Private Notice Question which I am answering. Matters relating to Hunterston fall to the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as myself.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should receive urgent consideration ; namely

"the plans of the British Steel Corporation, which were announced yesterday evening, to close steel works and to make 20,000 people redundant, with the heaviest impact falling on Scotland."

First, the matter is specific. The Clyde Iron Works, the Clydebridge and Lanark shire open-hearth plants, the Clydebridge slabbing mill and the iron and steel-making plants at Shelton are specifically proposed by the BSC for closure.

Secondly, the matter is important. The numbers of men directly affected, the strategic rôle of the steel industry in the economy, and the principles involved in the relationship between Ministers and nationalised industries have led all the main national newspapers to give prominence to the matter and to carry leaders this morning and have resulted in a Private Notice Question this afternoon. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have made their representations as to the urgency of the debate. To those of us who are in close touch with the trade union representatives on the shop floor as well as at national level, it is clear that there will be incalculably damaging effects stretching far beyond the steel industry if the BSC goes ahead with its proposals.

Thirdly, the matter is urgent, since the BSC has said that it wishes to go ahead with its proposals this week. While the issue is specific, the actions taken by the BSC could be restrained by a general directive given by the Secretary of State.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice of his intention to make this application and also of the reasons with which he sought to sustain it. I have also heard the exchanges which took place today. I am, therefore, in the position of having to decide whether to give precedence to this matter over the business set down for today or tomorrow, when we are having a long-awaited defence debate. I cannot disrupt the business which has already been arranged. I am sorry that the answer must be "No".

Ibeg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to British Summer Time.

The purpose of my Bill is simple. It seeks to reduce the period during which GMT operates in the winter from 19 to 14 weeks. The point is so simple that I shall not need even 10 minutes of the time of the House in which to make it clear.

The House of Commons has been playing with the clock for many years. The first attempt to introduce British summer time was made in 1908 and was thrown out on the farming vote on the grounds that the cows would not understand it. However, during the 1914–1918 war, British summer time was introduced and the cows did not appear to have any difficulty. Between the wars we went over to our current system of part GMT, part BST. In the Second World War we went over to double summer time, which suggests that there are considerable economic grounds for having as much summer time as possible. Thereafter we reverted to the previous system until 1968, when there was a growing feeling that with our ties with Europe and so on—I do not wish to tread on dangerous ground—it would be convenient to go on to British summer time, which is the same as European standard time.

After three years it was found that that arrangements was not convenient to farmers and horticulturists and that many mothers with children at school—children who had to be seen off to school in the dark—were apprehensive. Therefore, on 2nd December 1970, by a free vote of 366 votes to 81, the House opted to return to GMT, that is winter time, during the winter period.

I remember that there were speeches from both sides of the House—indeed, I made one myself—urging the Secretary of State of the day not to go back to the 4½ to 5-month period which had been prevalent but merely to trim the gloomy period when the country was in winter time to the minimum necessary to achieve the objectives of the one-hour saving which is what our farmers wanted.

I have been hammering away at this with successive Governments for four years by means of parliamentary Questions, private letters and so on, and still I do not understand the formula adopted by the Home Office. The nearest indication that I can give as to its meaning is that winter time comes in on the Sunday before the Queen's Speech and goes out on the Sunday after the Calcutta Cup.

These matters need not be settled by reference to solemn occasions. I prefer to look at the Nautical Almanac to see what is involved. Luckily, right hon. and hon. Members need not refer to the Nautical Almanac because we are all given Letts' Diary. If they look at the Saturday entry and remember to add or subtract two minutes as may be, they can do their own sums.

This year, we went over to summer time on 16th March, when the sun rose at 6.15 a.m. Remembering that sunrise on the shortest day was at six minutes past eight, therefore the moment that we fall back to six minutes past seven, that would be the right time to go over. We could have gone over to summer time on 24th February when the time of sunrise was four minutes past seven. That would have represented a three-week gain for those people with outside interests in the spring.

In the autumn, similarly, we go over to winter time this year on 26th October when the sun will rise at 7.43 a.m. But why not leave it until 9th November when the sun will rise at seven minutes past seven? This would give another two weeks in the autumn.

I might add that this general argument holds good throughout the whole of the United Kingdom at least up to the Glasgow-Edinburgh belt. Although, as is well known, the hours are shorter in Scotland in the winter, the gain, so to speak, is correspondingly great, give or take a couple of minutes. This proposition holds good throughout the United Kingdom.

The formula that I have in mind will still meet the requirements of farmers, horticulturists and anxious mothers with children going to school. It will at the same time meet the real and reasonable demands of sportsmen, gardeners, fishermen and everyone who enjoys outdoor recreation in the late autumn and in the early spring. The present Minister responsible for sport spoke eloquently in support of these people in 1970.

I believe, too, that in these rather gloomy days it will be a psychological boost to us all if the winter is shorter. There will also be a considerable economy in the consumption of fuel, although I have no means of qualifying that.

This Bill is concerned only with the happiness and convenience of people. It is of a non-doctrinaire character. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department indicated that if the Bill did not run into unexpected pockets of opposition it would be considered seriously, if not favourably.

On these grounds, I beg to ask leave to introduce the Bill.

Before I call the Secretary of State for Defence, may I point out that I have a list of more than 50 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) has just addressed the House on the subject of a shorter winter. I am talking about shorter speeches. I have received the most appealing letters from right hon. and hon. Members putting forward very good reasons why they should be called in this debate. If they are to be called, the only solution is that speeches should be really brief.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you call the Secretary of State, will you indicate your decision about the amendments which appear on the Order Paper? One has been signed by more than 35 hon. Members. We are hoping that you will consider selecting that amendment. May I ask when you propose to announce your decision?

I do not propose to select any amendments for debate today.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for you at this stage to indicate whether you may not reconsider this matter tomorrow? I ask that question in view of the fact that so many hon. Members have put their names to the amendment referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and that no official Opposition amendment has been tabled.

I have made no decision about tomorrow. I have made a decision about today.

I beg to move,

That this House, recognising the need both to provide adequately for the nation's security and to ensure that the level of public expenditure is contained within available resources, welcomes the statement on the Defence Estimates 1975 (Command Paper No. 5976); notes the circumstances in which further financial savings have since become necessary; and endorses the Government's determination to maintain efficient and well-equipped armed forces for the security of the United Kingdom.

The statement on the Defence Estimates is my first Defence White Paper, and a long one. But I make no apologies for its length.

First, it gives the results of the defence review, including the wide-ranging consultations which have taken place since I announced the Government's proposals on 3rd December last year. It is a clear and comprehensive statement, giving as much detail as possible of the Government's defence policy, in its military, as well as its political, economic and financial aspects.

Secondly, I have been anxious to meet the recommendations of the Eighth and Ninth Reports of the Select Committee on Expenditure which urged that more information should be given on policy and strategic matters, as well as on costs.

In Chapter II, therefore, I have described extensively our operations in Northern Ireland and given fuller coverage of the military forces deployed on both sides in Europe, developments in East/West relations, and progress in NATO. Chapter III contains more information on exercises and operations ; chapter IV on Reserve and Auxiliary Forces ; and chapter VII on the content of our research and development and equipment programmes. In addition, there are two new annexes setting out the front line strengths of the Army and the RAF, alongside the customary table of the strengths of the Fleet.

Thirdly, there was no Defence White Paper last year, for reasons beyond my control; and I have thought it right to include in my White Paper details, fox example, of trends in recruitment, and new equipment coming into service, which would have appeared in the 1974 White Paper.

In Chapter I of the White Paper, as well as in my statement to the House on 3rd December 1974 and in the defence debate on 16th December 1974, I have dealt very fully with the background to the defence review. I have made clear that the results of the review are wholly consistent with the Government's commitments in the Labour Party's February manifesto and that of September 1974. I have explained that the review entailed a rigorous and fundamental analysis of every aspect of Britain's defence commitments and capabilities.

I have described the changes which, in the light of this analysis, the Government decided that it was necessary to make in order to reduce the burden of defence expenditure on the national economy and to release resources for investment and the balance of payments. I remain determined that this adjustment must be carried out in an orderly way over a period in order to preserve the efficiency and credibility of our forces.

I have made no secret of the difficulty of making the right political choices between the relative priorities attaching to our various commitments ; of avoiding, on the one hand, the retention of too many commitments which inevitably leads to ill-equipped, over-stretched and frustrated forces, and, on the other hand, arbitrary and short-term reductions which could have destroyed our credibility with our allies and partners inside and outside Europe, and also could have undermined our security.

But I am confident that, difficult though our task has been, we have made the right decisions. We have established clear strategic priorities, and we have explained these fully to our allies.

The Defence White Paper sets out the definitive decisions of the Government on all major issues of substance in the light of all the representations we received after we announced our proposals last December. I am indeed grateful for the understanding with which all our allies have approached these consultations.

We gave NATO the fullest opportunity to consider our proposals in detail and to make representations about them. We treated our non-NATO allies and partners with no less consideration. They have reacted reasonably and helpfuly, as we were confident they could and would if we took proper care to explain our position. We have also taken full account of the points made in last December's debates in both Houses; and we have produced many memoranda and twice given oral evidence to the Expenditure Committee's sub-committee on Defence and External Affairs. I was pleased to note the favourable terms in which its report described the defence review. The Committee also endorsed our strategy of concentrating resources on NATO, and, where possible, withdrawing from other areas.

The Government recognised, from the moment they took office, the need to tailor our defence commitments and capabilities to our economic and political position as a middle-rank European Power, and to ensure a modern and effective defence system geared to what we can afford. This cannot be done by relaxation of vigilance, wishful thinking, and blindness to political and economic trends. It can be done only by realistic planning for defence in the longer term so that political and economic realities always march in step.

The previous Government adopted a foreign and defence policy when they entered office in 1970 that did not take account of the räle which we could sensibly afford to play in today's world. They stuck rigidly to that 1970 statement of policy. Yet, at the end of 1973, even they were beginning to realise that their policy was no longer viable in the economic circumstances at that time. But instead of pressing forward with a fundamental review, they resorted, during 1973, to arbitrary financial cuts, totalling £291 million at 1974 prices. They must have known that such short-term cuts on that scale could not solve the basic problem. I have no doubt that in time, if they had had the chance, even they would have been forced to undertake a review similar to our own.

I believe that in defence we have set a pattern of reviewing its proper objectives. We have carried through our analysis to the point of political decision, and I believe we have made the right choices. Others in public departments, the public sector and the private sector might well find an example here.

When the Minister of State for Defence wound up the debate on 16th December he described the Government's conclusions as being

"…a judgment, cool and considered, of what we need to spend to ensure our own security." — [Official Report,16th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 1290.]

Now that the Government propose to cut a further 3 per cent., is it their view that the original judgment was insufficiently cool, or merely, after nine months, insufficiently considered?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will just wait a moment he will realise that I intend to deal with the cut of 3 per cent. or the £110 million that he has just mentioned.

It is an illusion to think that massive cuts, more drastic and quicker than those on which the Government have decided, could have been achieved by cutting more of our non-NATO commitments. These are not costly compared with the cost of our commitments to NATO. Nor could massive and immediate cuts have been made without putting the whole of NATO strategy in jeopardy, destroying the cohesion of the alliance, and ruining our hopes for achieving a true and lasting détente.

Immediate and savage cuts in defence would have risked undermining Western security and Britain's credibility as an ally. They would have served notice to the United States—and to the Warsaw Pact—that Britain had lost interest in Western defence. There would have been a declaration that Britain had lost interest in a continuing balance of power in Europe and the Atlantic, through which realistic détente—and ultimately multilateral disarmament—can, we hope, be achieved. I was not willing to contemplate such a course.

There would also have been other effects of sudden and drastic defence cuts, apart from the military and strategic damage they would have caused. Manpower costs, including pensions and redundancy costs, would have been very heavy and extensive. We would have incurred heavy financial penalties on cancelled production and abandoned projects. The industrial and employment implications would have been very serious, at a time when unemployment was rising.

As it is, the defence review has resulted in savings at 1974 prices of more than £4,700 million over the period to 1983–84, and nearly £1,500 million in the period to 1978–79.

Over and above the defence review reductions, I have accepted a further cut of £110 million in 1976–77 at 1974 survey prices as part of the Government's economic strategy which my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, set out in his Budget speech. This cut, of nearly 3 per cent., has been contrasted by some with the 1½per cent. cuts to which it is thought that civil expenditure has been confined. But hon. Members should re- member that, apart from social security which was not cut, civil programmes were subjected to cuts not only of 11 per cent. on current expenditure on goods and services but also of 10 per cent. on capital expenditure. These civil programmes were thus cut by 3 per cent., and therefore there has been no discrimination against defence expenditure in the reductions which we all had to accept. Resources had to be released to make room for the needs of investment and the balance of payments at a time when the recovery stage in the present world trade cycle should be under way. That is why—from the defence point of view, reluctantly—I had to play my part in giving £110 million of the £900 million-plus so that by 1976–77 those resources can be released at a time when we expect that the world trade cycle should start to be under way once again.

A cut of £110 million in 1976–77 cannot, of course, be painless. Inevitably it will mean that equipment purchases will have to be adjusted, works and building programmes deferred, and some further job opportunities lost. But no major projects will have to be cancelled or major plans altered, over and above those which resulted from the defence review.

I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will not carp at this reduction in view of their own past performance in the face of difficulties and in the light of their insistence, so recently reiterated both in this House and outside, on the need to reduce and control public expenditure.

Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to tell the House whether this cut of £110 million will in any way affect expenditure in future years? Shall we be forced to increase expenditure? Will expenditure be reduced, or will it remain the same as was previously projected?

Expenditure in the Estimates that have been printed will remain as projected, except for 1976–77 when we shall be cutting back £110 million—during 1976–77 only.

It is not my intention to trawl over the debate we had last December. I wish at this point to look to the future and to show how the defence commitments and capabilities which we shall retain will strike a responsible balance between economic reality and considerations of security, bearing constantly in mind the unique penalty of misjudging the size and shape of forces we need to ensure our security.

I will deal with our commitment to NATO first—the first priority of the Government's defence policy.

There are some who argue, particularly perhaps among younger people who have grown up without direct experience of war close to their homeland, that the Warsaw Pact does not threaten the security of Europe and that defence is a waste of resources. War, or the threat of force, is seen as something which concerns other people, not ourselves. It is a nice comfortable feeling such as ostriches have as the sand trickles into their ears. It is that happy feeling that the horrors of war in Vietnam and Cambodia could not possibly happen in Europe.

To meet these arguments I have set out in Chapters I and II of my White Paper the reasons why the Government believe that we must continue our commitment to NATO in the face of the massive forces which the Warsaw Pact maintains in Europe.

First, can we ignore the broad strategic nuclear parity which exists between the Soviet Union and the United States, consisting on each side of more than 2,000 inter-continental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarine-launched ballistic missiles and long-range bombers? I do not think we can, because the Soviet Union's strategic forces could be used against Europe. Even less can we ignore the Warsaw Pact's very large force of shorter-range nuclear missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft which could be used only against Europe. Secondly, over and above this nuclear armoury, the Warsaw Pact deploys massive conventional capability in Europe.

Then there is the emergence of the Soviet Union as a maritime super-Power with a large and constantly growing submarine fleet already more than twice as large as that of NATO. That, too, is another, most significant point.

The concentration of maritime forces in the Soviet Northern and Baltic Fleets must be of particular concern not only to Britain but also to our European and American allies because of the threat which it poses to NATO'S transatlantic communications and to NATO's seaborne deterrent forces.

These fleets contain about 70 per cent. of the Soviet Union's nuclear powered submarines, about 65 per cent of her missile-firing submarines, and nearly half her missile-armed major warships. In the Eastern Atlantic, NATO's submarines are outnumbered by some 60 per cent., and of the Soviet total, almost half are nuclear powered. The discrepancy is even greater in the case of surface ships, where NATO is outnumbered by about 70 per cent.

In Central Europe, Warsaw Pact forces in peace outnumber those of NATO in both manpower and weapons. In total manpower the discrepancy is about 20 per cent., with the Warsaw Pact at about 925,000 and NATO at about 780,000 men. The Warsaw Pact has some 30 per cent. more soldiers in fighting units—525,000 men as opposed to NATO's 405,000. It has 3,400 tactical aircraft to NATO's 1,500, about 15,500 tanks to NATO's 6,000, and 6,700 field guns to NATO's 3,200.

The clear and menacing figures which the Minister has just given to the House and which he quotes from his White Paper are surely a very natural and credible preamble to recommending an increase in defence expenditure rather than justifying a cut.

The hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members of the Opposition have stressed that point in past debates. But they always talk as though it is the United Kingdom alone which, first, can police the world ; second, can have maritime forces to protect all our sea routes; and third, must alone match the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. I am trying to point out that there is an imbalance. In due course I shall point out to the House why we took our strategic decisions when we carried out our defence review.

The Soviet Union is also improving the quality of its forces—we have recognised in the past that NATO has always had the edge—rapidly and relatively to NATO's improvements. Over the past 10 years Soviet defence expenditure is estimated to have increased at about 3 per cent. a year at constant prices, and some 5 per cent. a year over the past three years.

These forces are far greater than the Warsaw Pact requires for garrison duties or for the protection of Soviet sea-borne trade. The Warsaw Pact also has considerable additional advantages over NATO in terms of geography, and short and rapid reinforcement over land routes.

But, in spite of this military imbalance, NATO has, for 26 years, maintained its resolution and fulfilled its basic purpose of deterring aggression in Europe. Its continued strength is vital to our national interests and to our security. We have not taken it for granted, and we must not.

Therefore, I have ensured that, within our means, the United Kingdom will continue to make the strongest possible contribution to the alliance in the central region, in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas, in the United Kingdom and its immediate approaches, and through our contribution to the NATO nuclear deterrent. We could not have concentrated solely on a maritime strategy, or on the central region, or on a conventional strategy. To have done so would have seriously weakened the confidence and credibility of the alliance. The alliance depends on forward defence on land and at sea; on sea as well as air reinforcements; on the security of the United Kingdom against all threats; and on deterrence at all levels of possible conflict. All of these contributions are vital ingredients of the continued cohesion of Europeans within NATO, and of the commitment of the United States to station strong forces of their own in Europe, and to reinforce them.

Is my right hon. Friend able to say, either now or later in the debate, whether staying in the nuclear arms league means further atomic testing?

I have already indicated to the House on many occasions in answer to supplementary questions from both sides of the House, and in a written reply a fortnight ago, that at some time in the future—I do not know when—if we are to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent, it may be necessary to have another test. If it is possible to give my hon. Friend notice of it, I shall certainly do that. The maintenance of our nuclear deterrent happens to be part of our defence policy and plays a part in our defence strategy. Therefore, I must say that if necessary, we may have to have another test.

Each Service will have its part to play in the defence of the alliance. Britain contributes some 70 per cent. of the immediately available maritime forces in the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel areas. In a time of tension or war, these forces would demonstrate NATO's resolve to keep open sea communications between Europe and the rest of the world, and particularly for reinforcements from the United States. The effective defence in these areas therefore depends critically upon the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

In order to meet this task we shall be maintaining the new construction programmes for nuclear-powered submarines and for anti-submarine cruisers which are needed to counter the formidable and growing Soviet submarine threat, and we are continuing the construction of new destroyers and frigates, including the Type 42, which will considerably enhance the ability of our ships to survive attack by missiles launched from submarines, surface ships, or aircraft.

We shall be maintaining the professionalism and even enhancing the combat capability of our land forces so that we shall have a more modern, streamlined and cost-effective Army. We shall achieve this by a radical reorganisation of the Army's structure to adapt it to the tactical concepts and sophisticated equipment of the 1980s.

The United Kingdom's land contribution to NATO will be maintained at a level of 55,000 men, and 1 British Rhine Corps will continue to cover the same key frontage in the central region. Its front-line capability will be enchanced and the number of combat teams will be increased. On mobilisation, the size of BAOR would be more than doubled, and we hope to increase the number of reinforcements by some 5,000 men and streamline the home base to handle the mobilisation and deployment more effectively.

Although the Royal Air Force transport force will be cut by 50 per cent. no significant reductions will be made in front-line combat aircraft, and all the major re-equipment programmes affecting the front line will go ahead.

Arrangements have also been completed for the closer integration of the Commander-in-Chief of Strike Command into the NATO Command structure, as a result of which nearly 200 additional Strike Command aircraft, including Buccaneers, Canberras, Vulcans, Harriers, Hunters, as well as the VC10s, Belfasts and Hercules, will now be more readily available to the alliance in an emergency.

If we were to maintain our commitments to these crucial central areas of NATO, some reductions had to be made in those areas where our contribution could not, in our view, be effective. Our specialist reinforcement forces were originally designed to meet our former world-wide commitments and were out of proportion to our new räle in European defence.

Naturally we took fully into account the imbalance between the Warsaw Pact and NATO forces on the flanks of NATO, especially on the northern flank, in reaching our conclusions, and we consulted our allies fully before reaching our decisions. The choices we made were not easy, but I am convinced that they were right. As a result, the forces which we shall retain for these räles—which are spelt out in the White Paper—will continue to make a formidable contribution to alliance security.

Our careful consultations with the alliance have fully borne out our judgment of our priorities. Naturally, our allies were disquieted by the scale of the reductions we proposed and the weakening effect they would have on NATO's conventional capability vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact if they were not offset by compensatory measures.

We have been able to go some way towards meeting these concerns by certain modifications to our original proposals, and consultations with our allies are continuing on further low-cost measures which we may be able to take in addition to those already spelled out in the Defence White Paper.

Our ability to help will very largely depend on the degree of assistance and "host-nation" support that our allies can provide in order to reduce the cost to us of continuing to meet some of these commitments, and will be on the clear understanding that all our defence commitments and capabilities must be met from within the total of resources allocated by the Government to defence.

In spite of the military imbalance in Europe, we are following a policy of détente as well as defence. We believe that, provided we maintain credible deterrent forces, we can hope, with our allies, gradually to establish better relations with the Warsaw Pact countries.

This is not easy while the Warsaw Pact maintains such massive military power, but the Prime Minister's recent visit to the Soviet Union and mine to Romania were aimed at building a more productive and co-operative relationship between East and West irrespective of the differences in our political, economic and social systems.

The fruits of improving East-West understanding could be very great, and on a basis of equality and mutual respect we shall continue to pursue it, especially in the conference on security and cooperation in Europe and in the negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions.

In our approach to the adjustment of the equipment programme to the new level of forces, we have avoided short-term and disproportionately disruptive cuts in those projects which are now well advanced. Instead, we have been able to preserve the most important new projects in hand at the moment.

Looking ahead, we intend to take decisions on equipment progressively at the proper time, but with strict regard to the level of resources which will be available to defence over the next 10 years. This will mean, among other things, that we shall have to be more insistent than ever that all new equipment projects will make a cost-effective contribution to our military capability. We shall also be pursuing with increased vigour collaborative and co-operative projects within NATO in order to avoid the often wasteful duplication of effort of the past. The way ahead will not be easy but we believe that we shall be able to maintain the equipment of our forces at the proper technical level and still make subsantial budgetary savings.

Although changes in the forward equiment programmes will be made progressively and as smoothly as possible, the effects on employment in industry cannot, I am afraid, be evenly spread. Reductions will be most marked in the aerospace field. Even before the defence review it was clear that, with fewer new projects coming along, there would be a marked reduction over the next decade in the level of activity on military aerospace projects, particularly on the design side.

The defence review measures will affect the future loading of the principal aerospace constructors—Hawker Siddeley Aviation, the British Aircraft Corporation, Rolls-Royce and Westlands. There have been consultations with these firms and with the Departments of Employment and Industry to assist the orderly redeployment of valuable skills to non-defence work.

That is the keynote of an orderly and controlled adjustment of our defence forces over a sensibly long forward period. It allows the consequences, especially in terms of jobs, to be managed so that the effect on individuals, their livelihoods and their families will be reduced to the minimum.

While a reduction in planned expenditure is likely to affect future job opportunities, it does not necessarily entail redundancy. Redundancy in a particular factory depends on the availability of other work at the time and the way in which management decides to cope with the changing work load. I am glad to say that I do not foresee any threat of widespread unemployment in any region of the country as a result of the measures we have adopted as a result of the defence review.

In this regard, increasing attention is being given within the alliance to cooperation in equipment procurement and greater standardization. There are obvious economic advantages. With common equipment, we could avoid duplication of development; there would be longer production runs to meet larger orders, so unit costs would be lower; and we could get better value for money. Economies through co-operation in logistic support can follow. It is vital that we should all get the best value that we can out of our defence budgets, which are under pressure throughout the alliance. The operational advantages could also be considerable.

Within the alliance a particular focus of our efforts is to be the Eurogroup of Defence Ministers. Later today I shall be welcoming my colleagues to London for the meeting of the Eurogroup which is to be held in Lancaster House tomorrow.

I believe that Eurogroup has a distinctive and important contribution to make to the strength and cohesion of the alliance. I was particularly pleased and honoured when my fellow Eurogroup Ministers of Defence invited me to be their chairman during this year.

A central subject for Eurogroup to consider is the "two-way street" in defence equipment between the United States, on the one hand, and the European members of the alliance, on the other; that is to say, the suggestion that, in the interests of getting common equipment in NATO, the United States should buy equipment from Europe, just as Europe is buying from the United States.

I am looking forward to discussing this topic constructively with my Eurogroup colleagues at our meeting. I hope that we can take the right decisions on this, because this issue concerns a key relationship in the alliance, and much in the way of renewed confidence, cohesion, and material benefit could flow from such decisions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the position of France in this matter in view of her relationship with NATO?

Yes. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I reveal to the House that I should be very keen for France to take the vacant chair at Eurogroup. France plays a very important part in Western European defence industries. We have collaborative projects with the French and they have collaborative projects with other Western industrial countries within the NATO alliance. I feel, therefore, that if France would like to make an effort to co-operate fully within the Western European defence industrial force, the vacant chair at Eurogroup remains ready and willing to receive the French delegate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider moving Eurogroup from its headquarters in Brussels, thereby making it more attractive for eventual French participation?

I should not be prepared to consider that at this stage. The Eurogroup is meeting in London this week. This is the first time that it has met outside Brussels, and it might be a useful precedent, but I should not want to take it beyond that. No doubt Ministers as they become chairmen of Eurogroup will probably want to have their annual meetings in their own capitals.

There are, of course, threats—political as well as military—and military imbalances elsewhere in the world other than in the NATO area.

There are those who argue that this is all our business and that we should be actively engaged all over the world as we once were in the days of our military, economic and political greatness, and there are those who argue that none of this is our business. The Government's view is at neither extreme.

We believe that, with a national income per head a little over half that of the Federal Republic of Germany, two thirds that of France and less than a fifth more than that of Italy, we are in no position to continue to police the world, and that it is not realistic to expect us to do so.

But we have decided that we must retain a military presence in some of our dependent territories—Hong Kong. Gibraltar, Belize and the Falkland Islands—and in certain other areas, such as Cyprus and Oman, where the withdrawal of British forces in present circumstances might have had adverse political consequences which outweighed the cost to Britain of maintaining a reasonable level of forces. Some withdrawals and adjustments have, therefore, already begun.

The process of adjusting the size of the Armed Forces and the numbers of civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence cannot, I am afraid, be painless. We must ensure that, when the reductions are over, we have not only the right numbers overall, but the right numbers in each rank, in each age bracket, and in each trade. Unfortunately, it cannot be done without some measure of redundancy. It would be impossible to avoid an unbalanced manpower situation without some redundancy. It is very sad that, in restricting defence spending to what we can afford, the careers of so many officers and men will have to be cut short. The redundancy terms are generous, but they cannot, of course, compensate the individual for the loss of a career.

All this would, I think, have been unnecessary if the size and shape of our defence forces had been continuously and realistically kept under review over the past few years. But, as things are, redundancies are necessary if we are to have the sort of forces in the future in which every man and woman, Service and civilian, knows that he or she is doing a thoroughly worth-while job and has a future career which will give continuing advancement and job satisfaction until the normal age of retirement.

The Forces Resettlement Service is already geared to the scale of normal out-flow—in the region of 40.000 a year—so it should be able to cope very well with the redundancies arising out of the defence review.

We have available the redundancy figures as a result of the defence review. We do not have the figures for the redundancies that will be created by the further 3 per cent. cut, nor the changes in equipment procurement. May we assume that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some of the details of that?

No, because I am not expecting any further redundancies on the £110 million cut in 1976–77. What I am expecting is that some of the equipment programmes will be deferred and that some of the job opportunities in the industries that provide that equipment will be affected. When I have firm proposals I shall be able to make a further statement in the Defence White Paper for the year in question.

I am also very conscious of the problem of housing, where the Service man—and his family—sometimes finds himself at a disadvantage when he leaves the Services. I am hopeful that the situation will be alleviated by the circular which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will very shortly be issuing to local authorities urging them to bear in mind the special circumstances of ex-Service personnel and to take these into account in their allocation of housing.

I should like to mention some of the current operations of the Armed Services. First, and foremost, there is the outstanding work done, and still being done, by British Service men in Northern Ireland. Their task is difficult, often dangerous, and, in many respects, distasteful, but it is a vital task and one which, despite the discomfort and hazard, the troops continue to carry out willingly, thoroughly and effectively, and I cannot pay them too high a tribute.

On the question of housing, does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from local authorities, something should be done about new towns which are far too slow in recognising the needs of Service personnel?

I hope that once the circular has gone out from the Department of the Environment about housing we shall quickly be able to make an analysis of how many local authorities are reacting in favour of the Service man. No doubt we shall be able then to examine also the problem of the new towns.

I think that most of the House will remember that, during the Cyprus emergency last year, all three Services played a part in a massive evacuation, allied with their humanitarian operations. This was an excellent operation, carried out in full view of the whole world, and it showed how professionalism and sensible contingency planning pays off when things get serious. More recently, the Royal Air Force has helped in the evacuation of British people from Phnom Penh and Saigon.

The Services have continued also to stand ready to provide assistance to the civil community in emergency and have undertaken numerous community projects. Much credit is due to the Service men who recently carried out with great efficiency the difficult and unpleasant job of removing the health hazard caused by the building up of rubbish in the streets of Glasgow.

There are many more examples. I have mentioned only a few, and no doubt hon. Members will draw other examples to the attention of the House. I have spoken at some length about the military imbalance in Europe and about the action that we are taking to ensure that Britain's contribution to the security of the NATO area is maintained at the highest level that we can reasonably afford. I believe that, given the stalwart conventional and nuclear defences of the NATO Alliance, there is no imminent threat of military aggression. But, as I have said in my White Paper, this is a political judgment which neither alters the military facts nor necessarily holds good for ever.

But the threat to the West is political rather than military. Any major Power with massive military power at its disposal could, if it so wished, bring political pressure to bear upon any country in Europe or elsewhere which, for whatever reason, had lost its political and military self-confidence. That pressure could be exercised not only on the external policies of the country concerned but also on its freedom of action internally.

Against this threat we have to safeguard our own freedom, our way of life, our belief in our common heritage of democracy and individual liberty, and our commitment to social justice, human equality and the rule of law. All these basic freedoms find their expression through our system of parliamentary democracy, and we must defend it and those freedoms against every threat from wherever it comes.

No one in this House wishes to see the day when—in this country or in any other country of the free world—the freedom to express dissentient views is curtailed, when minorities are not tolerated, and when intimidation and brutality replace the rule of law. These are the evils which we defeated 30 years ago, and these are still the evils which we must be vigilant against today. It is against the threat of these evils that we all need defence—civil and military, individual and collective.

Our Armed Forces, combined with those of our allies, are tangible evidence of our determination to protect the freedom of our people from interference or domination by the threat of force. Their dedication and professionalism needs to be recognised and acknowledged by a greater number of our own people, for our Armed Forces have a large part to play in ensuring that our precious freedom is preserved. We owe a great debt to those who are prepared and ready to defend our way of life for us.

Idealism is not the monopoly of a few, but the privilege of us all, and we all need to recognise that those ideals, which to some it has become unfashionable to talk about, are fundamental to decent human life and must be defended against any attempt to destroy them.

The House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for his White Paper, which has been with us for some weeks now, and also for considerable portions of his speech today—if by no means all of it. The House will be particularly glad to have this debate at this time, as we have waited an extraordinarily long time for it. It is now almost eight weeks since the White Paper was published. The whole issue of the White Paper and of defence generally cannot often have been discussed at a more serious or more important stage in our country's affairs.

It is a great pity that, due partly to the disarray of the Government's parliamentary programme, we have had to wait this long time for this important debate. This is also due to the fact that the Government have regrettably allowed several measures, important to them but highly unimportant to the country, to take precedence over this debate over the last few weeks. For instance, could we not have debated this matter last week instead of the nationalisation of North Sea oil or the Community Land Bill or the Employment Protection Bill? I regret that the Government appear to regard those measures as more important than the defence of the country. That is an attitude to which the Opposition cannot possibly subscribe. I have wondered whether the Government were waiting until after the Budget so that the Chancellor could put his hand into the defence review and possibly take some of the blame for the result.

It is always difficult to discuss defence matters in time of peace. No one knows better than those who have at any time taken part in defence debates or in defence itself that it is not a subject which impinges daily on the life of every citizen. But the Secretary of State tried to explain at the end of his speech why defence is still, at the end of the day, the most important responsibility of any Government and why any Government who fall down on that responsibility are guilty in a unique way of failing in their responsibilities.

I should like to add my congratulations to those of the Secretary of State to our Armed Forces generally for the way in which they have conducted their many duties over the past one-and-a-half to two years since we last had a full-scale Defence White Paper. The standards of the men and women in our forces, the professionalism that they employ and the standards of the operations which they can do when called upon, often at short notice, are today as high as they have ever been in the history of our forces. The same can be said for their morale, which in the visits that I have paid I have found to be exceptionally high. This is a great encouragement to everyone involved in defence. It is also encouraging to see some improvement in recruiting, which has caused concern at times and which we hope to hear more about today.

While endorsing warmly what the Secretary of State said about the conduct of our troops in Northern Ireland—the most difficult job that they have had to do for a long time—I would add that I doubt whether any other army in the world could have tackled that task with anything like the success and expertise that ours has done. Finally, and by no means going from the sublime to the ridiculous, I would single out the public-spirited and, in its own way, expert fashion in which the troops tackled the distasteful and unpleasant task of clearing the great city of Glasgow of the rubbish left around during the strike. Our Services and those who serve in them deserve the highest praise—as I am sure the whole House will agree.

It is impossible not to feel some sympathy for the Secretary of State in the difficult balancing act which he has to do, as was so clearly demonstrated today. The right hon. Gentleman has to perform as two men in these debates, and I do not know which räle he plays the more effectively. Dr. Jekyll gives us a graphic description of the build-up of the Warsaw Pact Powers; Mr. Hyde tells us that as a result we must reduce our force levels. Dr. Jekyll tells us of the necessity for our defence being of the highest importance to our national life; Mr. Hyde tells us that we cannot afford to spend too much on important matters of defence which all our allies think are vital. This dual act must be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman, but, however well he may do it, it is simply not acceptable as a defence policy to describe, however graphically and expertly, the threats we face and then expect the House and the Opposition meekly to swallow the conclusion that as a result we must reduce our defences.

When the Defence White Paper was coming forward, I expected to have to produce a reasoned amendment to a Government motion approving the White Paper. As Opposition spokesmen do, I jotted down a few notes about what I might say. Alas, those notes have all had to be destroyed. I discovered that the Government had written their own reasoned amendment to their own White Paper. To paraphrase this extraordinary motion, perhaps a little unkindly, what it says is: "I have produced a White Paper, it has all gone wrong since, but 1 would like the House to approve it after all."

Labour Members below the Gangway have produced an amendment and have discussed with Mr. Speaker today whether it has been selected. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have a good deal to say later about that amendment. I want to make just one thing clear about it now, before we get into the main subject of the debate. Anyone who has had anything to do with looking after the defence of this country or who knows anything about the state of the world today will quail before the pure irresponsibility of this amendment. If any part of it were to be carried out by the right hon. Gentleman—I hope, indeed I am sure, that it will not be—such grave inroads would be made in our ability to contribute to NATO that our allies would not stand for it for a moment and we could not hold up our heads. I hope that, whatever else it does, the House will pay no attention to the amendment. I hope that it is treated with the contempt it deserves.

We regard the White Paper as a highly dangerous document. It covers a period stretching as far as 10 years ahead. The decisions taken as a result will be with us for many years. It is dangerous because it weakens our defences beyond what any rational calculation would advise was wise and lets down our allies in a way which they have, in the politest terms, made clear they do not agree with. We cannot ignore the fact that the White Paper throws literally thousands of people out of work. I hope that that fact will have sunk in to Labour Members, because they might regard it as being very important.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be totally unaware that there is still a shortage of skilled manpower in British industry, and that so long as we go on wasting our manpower and deploying it into armaments instead of items we can export, we shall seriously aggravate our economic position.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of visiting some of those people who are likely to be thrown out of work by this review and who know the facts. They have been here to tell us. Perhaps he would like to try out that argument upon them. I should like to hear how he gets on.

rose—

I am sorry. I will not give way, because I must get on.

We expect to go into much more detail during the Estimates debates later this summer. Subject to any more we may hear in those debates I am doubtful whether we can expect to see the usual pattern of Estimates debates passing through the House without a vote. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel extremely disturbed about the effects of these cuts on the Services.

No defence decisions taken by any Government are likely to have their full effects in the lifetime of that Government. This places a peculiar responsibility on Defence Ministers, of whatever party, to bear in mind that in most cases they will not have to deal with the consequences. The consequences of this review will be with us for much longer than the four or five years which are—even at the most optimistic, or perhaps I should say pessimistic—the possible lifetime of this Government.

The public must be made aware that the decisions in the White Paper will have their effect a long time hence. Conversely, if a threat occurs in five or six years' time, which we have neither the men nor the materials to meet, the public cannot expect to ask the Government of the day, "Why has provision not been made? We wish provision to be made to deal with this emergency". Then it will be too late. Therefore, the responsibility of Government is very great.

As I said in our debate in December, it is no part of the Opposition case that there can never, in any circumstances, be savings on expenditure on defence. Indeed, it is the prime responsibility of Defence Ministers, and Governments generally, continually to search for ways of achieving our defence more economically and getting better value for money. This should never cease.

It is no part of my argument that there is something intrinsically wrong in getting our defence at a lower cost, if that can be done. Any review of defence must be based on carefully thought out needs, the strategic and military needs based on our foreign policy, the needs of the Government and of the country at the time. Any review that is based on anything else is based on bad foundations. We cannot discuss this matter as if the world outside did not exist.

It is somewhat surprising that this great enterprise of the defence review, of which the right hon. Gentleman has been so proud, for the results of which we have waited so long, and which has placed the Services in a great deal of turmoil and uncertainty for over a year, started as a fundamental review of our defence requirements. But it then sailed on its way oblivious, it appears, of the fact that the world situation has changed in many respects quite dramatically during the past 15 months.

I shall briefly remind the House of only some of the major new uncertainties that we now face and that we did not face a year ago. There has been a major crisis in Cyprus which involved our forces and which has totally altered the situation in that troubled part of the Mediterranean. It has affected two of our vital NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, in a very complicated and difficult way, and no one can see how the tangled and tortured affairs of those two nations and Cyprus will be sorted out.

In the Middle East there is certainly a no more stable position now than we had 15 months ago. Many people would say that it is rather more unstable. We have the prospect of the reopening of the Suez Canal, with all the implications that that has, not just for the Mediterranean but for the Indian Ocean.

We have experienced, and are still experiencing, what amounts to a revolution in Portugal—a NATO ally—where some important NATO installations are situated.

Finally, there are the tremendous effects—of which we are only just beginning to see the results—of the painful and heartrending upheaval in the Far East over the past few weeks.

However, throughout all this the defence review has sailed on unscathed. The aim of cutting our defence expenditure has not altered one whit up or down. As a result of all these events there does not seem to have been any alteration even from the position in December. We must ask ourselves whether it is prudent to continue on this course as if the outside world does not exist.

A defence review by any Government should be based first on our essential commitments. They should be matched against the resources available, and the cost should be assessed. If commitments can be shown not to be essential to our security they can and should be abandoned. Conversely, if commitments are clearly demonstrated to be essential to our security—and that includes our contribution to our NATO alliance, which is the most important single element in our security—they must be met. No commitment should be abandoned which is clearly demonstrated to be necessary.

The White Paper demonstrates beyond any doubt, to any objective reader, how essential many of our commitments are, but it then proceeds blandly to abandon them, which is not sense. That is the main burden of my complaints about it.

Paragraph 1 of the White Paper repeats the Government's announcement in the House that they had

" 'initiated a review of current defence commitments and capabilities against the resources that, given the economic prospects of the country, we could afford to devote to defence' ".

Yet paragraph 9 says,

"Clear strategic priorities were established at the outset; but no arbitrary financial limit was set, which would have prejudiced the outcome of the analysis."

That is true. But was it completely open, no arbitrary financial limit being set? The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, whom I am always fond of quoting, put it more clearly and in a way with which I agreed, in a speech in Portsmouth on 19th April 1974, when he said,

"If we are to behave rationally and constructively in government, we cannot simply pluck a percentage or figure from a hat and say that our defence expenditure must, at all costs, he pegged to it. There is no logic in such an approach."

Those were wise words. There is no logic in such an approach.

That leads me to the kernel of the absurdity of the arguments in the White Paper, this great game of relating our defence expenditure to the gross national products of other countries—not, as might be thought reasonable, the GNPs of our enemies or potential enemies, but at our allies.

The October 1974 Labour Party manifesto said:

"The Labour Government is conducting the widest ranging defence review to be carried out in peace-time".

It went on to commit a Labour Government to

"achieving annual savings…of several hundred million pounds."

That was at a time when this open-ended defence review, with no financial ceiling, was still in progress.

It was closely followed by the right hon. Gentleman's December statement in which he announced that he had decided to reduce defence expenditure, as a proportion of our gross national product, from 5½per cent. to 4½ per cent.

Let us see whether this argument can be made to hold water. I do not see in the White Paper, and I have heard from no Minister or Labour Member. any justification for either figure. Nobody has told me whether 5½per cent. is too high or too low, and why, or whether 4½per cent. is too high or too low, and why. They are figures plucked out of the air and used for the purpose of mathematics in this exercise.

What is the hon. Gentleman's calculation of how much of the nation's resources should be spent on defence burdens and arms? He does not need access to secrets to give the answer.

I do not subscribe to the theory that the amount of defence we need has any relationship to GNP—I think that by the time I have finished explaining, Labour Members will agree with me.

The percentage of GNP that any country spends on defence clearly depends, first, on what that GNP is. Secondly, it depends on many forecasts which go to make up that GNP, particularly when one is looking a certain number of years ahead, as we are. Everyone knows that the forecasts of growth in the economy and of rates of inflation are extremely doubtful. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a noted exponent of the art of forecasting the rate of inflation, he is not likely to win a Nobel Prize as the most accurate forecaster of rate of inflation.

The whole exercise has been based on a notional rate of growth of 3 per cent. per annum. Is there any hon. Member left who believes that, whatever happens to our economy, it will continue to grow at an average rate of 3 per cent. over the next 10 years? Does anyone have any demonstrable reason for being able to put that forward as a proposition?

Thirdly, the percentage of GNP depends on what one includes in defence. Some countries with which comparisons are made include the health expenditure on their forces, while others do not. Some have conscript armies. Others do not. Some include such things as housing families overseas as part of social expenditure, whilst other include it as part of military expenditure.

I give one interesting example to show that these are not just airy-fairy matters plucked out of the air. In France, one of the countries with which our performance is compared, the pay of retired Service men is not included in the defence budget, though it is included in our defence budget. The French defence budget would be 9,397 million francs or 20 per cent., bigger if it were included. That would make a big difference to the calculation of the percentage of GNP the French spend on defence.

I shall not weary the House with numerous other examples, which are boundless. Anyone hanging his hat on the principle or relating the two things is talking economic nonsense and should admit it.

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a need to keep down public expenditure, of which defence expenditure is part? If no plans are made to reduce defence expenditure, it is nonsense to talk, as the Opposition have talked, about the necessity to take action on this matter of public expenditure.

That is an entirely different point. I shall return to the general question of expenditure. I am trying to demonstrate that the whole business of relating gross national product and defence expenditure is economic and military nonsense.

Who would contend with any reason that our defence needs vary according to our GNP? Do we become more or less threatened if our gross national product rises? Do we believe that there is any direct relationship between the two? I do not believe that that can be demonstrated.

I do not see my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) here. He might have been able to help us. I wonder what would have happened if Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, had sat down in May 1940 to work out our allies' percentage of defence expenditure and to try to relate ours to it. If he had, many of us would not be here today.

Even if the argument were good, even if the argument about the relationship between GNP and defence expenditure held water, the people with whom we should draw comparisons are not our allies but our potential enemies, the people against whom our forces are likely to be ranged.