asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the naval building programme.

The naval shipbuilding programme is proceeding as planned.

Does the Minister agree that British naval shipbuilders like Yarrow and Vosper Thornycroft have a superb record of building ships for the Royal Navy and for foreign Governments, at the same time providing secure employment and profitability for British industry? As these firms believe that nationalisation will do them a great deal of damage, will the Minister discuss with his colleagues, especially the Secretary of State for Industry, whether the nationalisation Bill might be dropped or amended?

I agree with the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman that the shipbuilding yards have a very good record, by and large, and I was delighted to discuss the work of Yarrow with Sir Eric Yarrow and his colleagues earlier this year, but I do not honestly think that the discussions which the hon. Gentleman proposes would serve a useful purpose. We intend to take the shipbuilding industry into public ownership.

Will the Minister state what is the latest decision concerning the deep-sea search and recovery vessel which is so badly needed in the North Sea?

The position is as it was when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy last reported to the House.

Will the Minister confirm reports in the Press on Tyneside that no fleet auxiliaries will be going to Tyneside for repair after December, and say how these reports compare with ministerial utterances that the unemployment situation in the North would be borne in mind? Might I suggest that more Type 42 destroyer orders be allocated to Swan Hunter?

I cannot now and would never seek to confirm reports in the Press, but I am not aware of a change of policy here. I shall look at it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Is it not a fact that naval shipbuilding firms have far more to fear from defence cuts than from nationalisation? What assurance will my right hon. Friend give us that the naval shipbuilding programme will continue?

It is always very difficult to give an assurance of the kind that my hon. Friend mentions. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that we cannot have continued substantial savings on defence, particularly on defence equipment, without there being consequences for employment, but the position is as previously reported to the House. We do not at the moment anticipate any changes in what was announced in the Defence White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships and men have been involved in the Beira Patrol during its operation.

Seventy-six Royal Navy ships and 28 Royal Fleet auxiliaries have taken part in the Beira Patrol. About 24,000 RN personnel were involved.

Despite the persistent cynicism of Conservative Members as to the value of this naval exercise, will my hon. Friend feel assured that Members on the Government benches and, in my view, all patriotic British citizens outside the House will agree that the Royal Navy has done a gallant and first-class job in blockading the illegal Smith régime? Does my hon. Friend expect to have more cooperation now from the new Government in Mozambique than he received from the Portuguese authorities before the revolution?

I thank my hon. Friend for the tribute in the first part of his question, and I am sure we would all wish to associate ourselves with what he said. To anyone who has looked at the work of the Beira Patrol it is clear that it was carried out, often under the most difficult circumstances, with great distinction by all personnel concerned over the years of its existence. As to the latter part of the question, that would be appropriately addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

While associating myself with the Minister's tribute to the Royal Navy, may I ask him why he is so coy in giving the total cost of the Beira Patrol since its inception? The Question has been asked on a number of occasions and the hon. Gentleman has refused to answer, in spite of the fact that answers have been given over the years. Therefore, will the Minister now give us an answer, or is he still coy about letting the country know how much money has been wasted on this operation?

I do not regard myself as being any more coy on this subject than hon. Gentlemen opposite who might have held my post before me. The fact is that the Beira Patrol has always been operated as part of wider naval operations. Therefore a costing of the kind that the hon. Member suggests would not be relevant.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a progress report on his study into the possibility of awarding pensions to widows of non-commissioned Service men who retired before 1950.

The matter is still under consideration.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is an extraordinary anomaly that the widows of non-commissioned Service men who served the country before 1950 in the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army in precisely the same way as those who were commissioned should get no pension at all? Does he not think that this is an intolerable position for a Labour Government to allow to continue?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we understand the strength of feeling behind his Question among a great many people. We are looking at the issue seriously. I shall report to the House as soon as possible.

What is there to consider? Is not the hon. Gentleman making heavy weather of a simple decision about whether to award pensions to widows, to decide on a date and to set a priority?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's deep concern, which he has expressed frequently in the House and elsewhere. His right hon. and hon. Friends were unable to come to a positive decision on this matter during their years of office. We are looking at it actively. It is not an easy matter. There are repercussions for the remainder of the public service. We hope to make a decision as soon as possible.

Following the real improvement in Service pensions which the previous Conservative Government were able to put into effect, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the major ex-Service organisations now agree that the first priority must be the care of widows?

Following the implementation of the last stage of the improvements in pension conditions introduced by the present Government—which we were glad to do—I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we understand this is a matter on which the ex-Service associations have expressed themselves forcefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the proposed expansion of facilities at Diego Garcia to be completed.

I understand that the Americans are planning to complete the proposed expansion by 1978, subject to congressional approval.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the agreement with the United States of America for the use of the facilities at Diego Garcia precludes the handling or storage of nuclear weapons there, in view of the interest of neighbouring Slates in having the ocean declared a nuclear-free zone? Can he assure the House that the proposed expansion does not go beyond the modest one which he announced last December?

I can assure my hon. Friend on that latter point. He knows, however, that it is not the policy of any Government—ourselves or any previous administration—to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons in locations, ships or aircraft. But because of the very modest developments on Diego Garcia, nuclear facilities will not be available.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is very much in our interests that this base should be developed, bearing in mind that the American fleet has to rely on Subic Bay, 4,000 miles away, for re-supply facilities? In view also of the increased Soviet interest in that part of the world, is it not important that our allies should have proper bases from which to operate?

I want first to correct the impression that it is a base. It is not a base. It is only a very austere communications facility for aircraft and ships. If the Americans manage to get congressional approval for this £37.8 million improvement, it will still be a very austere communications facility.

What is the difference between a base and an austere communications facility?

A base will supply facilities for replenishment, stores and recrea- tion, as distinct from merely signals and communications.

Can the Secretary of State say in what way the facility at Diego Garcia is regarded, if it is, as an alternative for the abandonment of Gan? In the context of the abandonment of Gan, what steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that the facilities there, which were paid for by our money, will be denied to a hostile Power in the future?

The future of Gan will be subject to discussions through the Foreign Office with the Maldivian Government. But there is no comparison between Diego Garcia and Gan. Gan was a major air staging post on the Far East route. Diego Garcia is just a communications facility at this stage with an 8,000-ft. airstrip, which will be improved to 12,000 ft. if the Americans get congressional approval.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the discovery of an unexploded bomb by the fishing vessel "Coral Bank" on 5th July.

The Royal Navy authorities were informed by Her Majesty's Coastguard at 0815 hours on 6th July that the trawler "Coral Bank" had reported picking up an object which appeared to be a bomb. The skipper was advised of alternative courses he might follow and in the event chose to dump and buoy it where it had been picked up. The object has since been recovered by HMS "Jura" and proved to be an inert practice round.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, and I am glad to hear about this happy outcome to the incident. Is he aware, however, that the skipper of the vessel was extremely alarmed to be asked to convey this bomb almost 140 miles to Peterhead in my constituency and to beach it there? If a citizen were to find a bomb in the street, he would not be asked to put it in his car and take it to a police station. Why should a fisherman be expected to take it up in his trawl at great hazard and to take it to land?

There are long-standing rules about the way to deal with objects of this kind based on the best advice that the Royal Navy can give. I am not aware of any problems of the kind that the hon. Gentleman mentions in the recent past. But I appreciate his concern. I have looked carefully into the course of events. If there are lessons to be learnt, they will be learnt.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he is making for the implementation of the proposals by the special working party on the future of the hydrographic service.

The report of the Hydro-graphic Study Group is still under consideration. A statement will be made as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I shall arrange for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he anticipate the expenditure of more public funds? If so, will a Vote of the House be required?

I refer my hon. Friend to our recent debate on the Royal Navy when I said that only the part of hydrographic work necessary for the work and operations of the Royal Navy could be financed out of the defence budget. Any other funds required will obviously have to come from other sources. This is what is being considered.

Did not the Hydrographer of the Royal Navy say in 1973 that many of our charts were already obsolete? Is it not more important today than in former years to keep them up to date, bearing in mind the needs of oil exploration? Does what the hon. Gentleman has just said mean that the proposals that the financing of the hydrographic service should be separate from the defence budget are accepted, or is he going less far than that?

The Hydrographer, in fighting for his unrivalled service in terms of hydrographic services anywhere else in the world, has spoken frequently of the quality of the service and of the problems that it faces. Obviously the Government are concerned to maintain the highest standard of charts. As to the issue of a separate Vote, this is under active consideration. The serious argu- ments put forward are being examined closely.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of the implication for NATO of the reopening of the Suez Canal.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) on 24th June.—[Vol. 894, c. 212.]

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the opening of the Suez Canal means that the Royal Navy can operate east of the Cape without Simonstown?

Yes, this is pointedly so. But my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has tried to indicate in the past that with or without the Suez Canal we can operate east of the Cape and that we have many major ports which we can use on a customer basis if we request them—especially Karachi, Colombo, Singapore and minor ones at Mauritius and Mombasa.

Does not the opening of the Suez Canal make nonsense of the NATO geographical guidelines? Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister initiate a happening in NATO to make sure that this matter is aired, bearing in mind that he will find that quite a lot of preliminary work was done on this matter by his predecessors in NATO circles?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is merely reminding the House of what it knows already. The Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic embarked upon a study of the protection of shipping during war time east of the Cape in 1972.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the system under which boys of 16 years of age can bind themselves to serve in the Army for periods of up to six years.

No, Sir. This matter was reviewed recently by Lord Donaldson's Committee on Boy Entrants and Young Servicemen, and the Army's terms of engagement now incorporate certain options designed to safeguard the interests of junior entrants.

Will my hon. Friend accept that in any case it is to the advantage of neither the Army nor the boy concerned that the boy should be kept in the Army against his will and that it cannot do any good for the Army's long-term recruiting prospects? How does my hon. Friend justify the use of the police to enforce this sort of obligation, as has been illustrated recently in the case of a 17-year-old constituent of mine? Is it not time that contracts of service contained the normal civilised provisions for termination by either side on the giving of adequate notice?

There are two issues involved. First, it is fair to say and to expect that a young man of 17 years will feel the pangs of homesickness and so on. In my view it would not be good to concede immediate release for a boy who was feeling the pangs of homesickness because it would probably deprive him of the opportunity to have a worthwhile and rewarding career later in life.

Enlistment into the Armed Forces does not involve entering into a contract. The engagement of members of the Armed Forces is at the discretion of the Crown. Consequently the law relating to contracts as it affects citizens does not apply.

Although I recognise that Scottish law allows a 16-year-old to enter into the lifelong commitment of matrimony, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that many 16-year-olds are too immature psychologically to enter into even six-year commitments in the Armed Services, especially bearing in mind the alluring advertisements used by the Services to attract these young men which fail to point out that they will be trained to kill and to be killed?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the immaturity of 16-year-olds. That is exactly why all junior entrants may leave as of right at any time during the first six months of service.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate a review of the purposes being served by the maintenance of military bands by his Department.

A review of all Service bands was completed as part of the recent defence review. I have no plans to conduct any further examination.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the context of nuclear missiles and electronic guidance systems the 95 bands are no longer relevant for any military purpose? Does he also agree that the public relations and recruitment functions, which for a long time appear to have been a large part of the bands' activities, are now best carried out by the media and that, therefore, the bands' contributions to the cultural life of the nation might be better served if they were demobilised and reformed as civilian organisations forming music centres throughout the British Isles?

My hon. Friend will not be surprised when I say that I do not agree that the military bands are irrelevant. In my view silver, brass and military bands are a part of the tradition of this country which I hope we shall never lose. I think that my view is shared by the vast majority of the population.

The Minister's reply will be warmly welcomed since the British Army bands are the envy of the world. In my constituency we are very proud of Kneller Hall where they are all trained. The Minister was very welcome on his recent visit there, as was the Secretary of State last week. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from the vital function of being morale boosters, these bands are worth their weight in gold because they are a big draw for tourists?

I cannot disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said. I endorse all he has said about Kneller Hall. I should like to invite my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) to go to Kneller Hall and enjoy a band concert. Although military bands are much loved in this country, in my area brass bands from miners' lodges are loved just as much.

Without in any way dissenting from the views advanced by my hon. Friend, may I ask him to be realistic and tell us whether the military bands actually earn any money either in Britain or abroad? If so, how much does it amount to in an ordinary year?

And where does it go?

I certainly could not hope to give a direct answer to that question, because I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) will appreciate that the value of military bands in terms of tourism alone is incalculable.

Although I welcome the Minister's robust reply, may I ask him to remind his hon. Friends that both the Soviet Army and the Chinese People's Republic Army attach high importance to maintaining military bands?

I am sure that the people of the Soviet Union and of the Chinese People's Republic enjoy military band music, and indeed, silver and brass band music, as much as I and the majority of the people of this country enjoy it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made concerning his study about the wastage of young persons in Her Majesty's Services; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 24th June 1975.

Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks for the very courteous letter he sent me in connection with this subject? May I remind him that in general industry all apprenticeships can be terminated at the end of three years? Why should he not consider a similar provision for the Services? Would it not be in everyone's interests for recruits who have lost their enthusiasm to go, as they have an unsettling influence on other young people who are anxious to make a success of a Service career?

My hon. Friend asked a Question specifically about the wastage of young people. Apprentices form a very small proportion of the total intake of the Services. We are undertaking this study precisely to establish where the wastage is and in what numbers. I hope that we shall complete it as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister of Egypt.

I have not met him.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Egypt came here with a shopping list for £450 million worth of arms which they were successfully able to buy? Surely the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State for Defence, should have seen a successful buyer of £450 million worth of British arms and should not have delegated this responsibility to a Foreign Office Minister, who might not know one end of a missile from another?

The hon. Gentleman is as completely misinformed in his supplementary question as he was in his original Question.

Let me put a question to the Secretary of State which does concern him. Apart from the obvious danger of pouring more arms into either side in this tinder-box which may start a world war, is he satisfied that we shall be paid for these orders, since Egypt already owes $3 billion to the West for arms supplied to her?

The Question was whether I met the Deputy Prime Minister of Egypt. The answer was "No, Sir." My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has referred to major contracts in the offing. No firm proposals have been put to me yet.

In courtesy to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), the right hon. Gentleman owes him an explanation of why he said he was misinformed.

I have just given the reason. There are no firm proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the recruitment procedure of the Armed Forces.

In general, yes, Sir.

In view of the very bleak employment prospects faced by young school leavers in many areas of the country, will my hon. Friend issue instructions to recruiting officers not to use undue pressure to exert unfair advantage on young people, many of whom are possibly faced with the dilemma of joining either the Forces or the dole queue? In particular will he do something about the recruiting officers who go into schools to lure young people into the Forces with the help of audio-visual aids which often give a misleading and exaggerated view of life in the Forces, because such practices are often tantamount to baby snatching?

In so far as I follow the burden of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the situation is that we accept only one in three of all applicants who come before the Service Recruiting Agency. I should have thought that that was sufficient rebuttal of his point that we are anxious to snatch whoever comes into a recruiting office.

Secondly, Service officers and personnel go into schools, as do other careers advisers, to give factual information about careers open to young people. I am anxious that they should give as realistic a picture of life in the Forces as possible. It does not suit our book to have glamorised pictures which the reality does not match.

Will the Under-Secretary tell us the present cost of recruiting a soldier? Secondly, in his review of recruiting has he decided to close any of the recruiting centres?

I cannot give the figure offhand. Recruiting centres are constantly under review. Only those that are the most cost-effective will be kept open. We are satisfied that the recruiting offices which are open are fulfilling a useful function.

The hon. Gentleman said that the hard facts were issued to persons who were being recruited. Does he agree that one of the vital hard facts concerns the roof over the head of a Service man when his term of service is over? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of my oft-repeated suggestion that Service men should be treated no less favourably than civilians by being given the right to have their names put on the local authority housing list of their choice on entry or on marriage, whichever happens later? Is he aware that that suggestion has been welcomed by Members of Parliament of all parties, whatever their views? Is it not time that the Ministry of Defence now came out with some hard facts on what it proposes to do about the mountainous problem of local authorities with bases in their areas which cannot accommodate the men who have served for many years and have nowhere to stay at the end of their service?

The hon. Lady, not for the first time, is under a complete misapprehension about the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. The Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office are responsible for housing in this country. I could understand what the hon. Lady's comments would be if the Ministry of Defence was responsible for Scottish housing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recruiting officers for any branch of the Services go on to school premises only with the express permission of the school governing body and that the more enlightened governing bodies, such as in my area, always consistently refuse to give that permission?

I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend's local education authority refuses to give permission. In my view, no education authority or anyone else should seek arbitrarily to deny the choice of a career to young people. What they have a right to ask for, and what we merely present, are the facts about a career in the Forces. It is then left to the young men and women concerned to choose that career if they wish.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give further details of the guidelines laid down by the NATO Defence Ministers on the adoption of a long-range defence concept.

I would refer the hon. Member of the annex to the communiqué issued after the NATO Defence Planning Committee ministerial meeting on 22nd and 23rd May which is available in the Library of the House.

Is it the desire of the NATO Defence Ministers as a whole to agree on a long-range defence concept connected with the production, harmonising and standardising of weapons procurement? If so, how is it related to the decision of the Eurogroup Defence Ministers in 1972 to agree on tactical concepts?

The hon. Gentleman is right on the first point. We shall now have to be more keen than before in using our resources more sensibly and wisely. Therefore, rationalisation and standardisation and greater co-operative efforts between the NATO nations is more than ever necessary.

Secondly, because of the rethinking on the long-range defence concept, we must bear in mind that because of the sophistication of new weaponry and the longer time scales before it goes into production and development, instead of planning on a seven-year cycle we must plan for much longer.

On the question of greater co-operative effort, in the light of the Belgian decision on the F16 and the well-known future problems of Dassault, what is the thinking of the Ministry of Defence about involving the French in, at any rate, the next stage of the multi-rôle combat aircraft?

I do not know to what extent the French would be interested in the MRCA, but we are particularly keen to involve them in the activities of the Eurogroup. There is a chair available for the French Government to become involved. From then on they would be involved in the co-operative efforts of the Eurogroup nations which are particularly keen to develop the standardisation of weaponry in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if United States U2 planes are currently using facilities in this country.

Yes, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these aircraft are notorious for their spying activities? Will he assure the House that they are not being used in spying activities? Does he agree that if they were so used détente could be seriously damaged? Will he make clear to the Americans that if these planes are used for spying elsewhere, they are not welcome here? Will he press the Americans to get rid of them as practice for the future in getting rid of American Polaris bases here?

As I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on 11th June, they are not on spying missions, they are not taking photographs and they are not armed. In those circumstances we have no intention of asking the Americans to terminate the trials, which are of a precision high altitude and navigation system.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay a visit to defence establishments in the Southampton area.

I have no plans at present to do so.

When the Secretary of State next visits the Southampton area, will he visit Netley military hospital, which is due to close in the next couple of years, and do his best to reassure the civilian employees there that his Department will do everything possible to find them alternative employment?

When next I visit Southampton I shall try to fulfil my hon. Friend's wishes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on implementation of arrangements for the population of Malta to have access to naval medical facilities.

Arrangements have long existed for Maltese locally-entered personnel, their dependants and Maltese locally-entered civilians injured at work to receive treatment in the Royal Naval Hospital, Malta. In addition the Maltese Government have recently accepted our offer of beds in the Royal Naval Hospital's maternity unit for other patients at rates based on the extra costs arising from their attendance.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving this agreement because I know that he has worked hard and long to reach this arrangement with the Maltese. Does he agree that the principle is important because it means the sensible use of existing facilities? Will he assure the House that if this principle can be applied elsewhere he will not hesitate to apply it?

I certainly assure my hon. Friend that wherever we can co-operate in ways of this kind we are anxious to do so.

I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on what he has achieved. Will he move a little further down the Mediterranean and tell us whether he has had any success in Gibraltar along similar lines with the hospital there?

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is a completely different question. If he cares to put it down, I shall be more than willing to answer it on a subsequent occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will explore with the Norwegian Government arrangements for joint defence of oil rigs in the North Sea.

The defence of North Sea oil installations against external attack is covered by NATO planning procedures. The protection of these installations in peace time is already under discussion outside NATO by the United Kingdom and Norway, together with other interested countries.

I welcome the second part of that answer. Is Norway constructing special vessels for the purpose? If so, could we not co-operate with Norway in the construction and design of such vessels?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that Norway has recently announced a programme of vessels rather similar to our own. It is not altogether clear whether there is room for co-operation in design and building since we have already placed our orders and the time scale is rather different. Certainly there will be co-operation as far as we are concerned.

How are oil rigs in the North Sea defended at the moment?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is important to distinguish between what happens in war-time circumstances, when the full resources of NATO and the Royal Navy would be available, and what happens in very different circumstances in peace time, for which we have new provisions about which the hon. Gentleman also knows.

Will the Minister consider not only the safety of the oil rigs but also the safety of the men who work on them and urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to bring all North Sea and offshore installations connected with the oil industry within the ambit of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act?

I am sure my right hon. Friend will note what my hon. Friend says and will write to him if necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of confusion in the House about the different threats against which we are trying to defend the oil rigs? Is he aware that I think the installations are virtually indefensible in war time against a conventional enemy but that there could be a threat from subversion and sabotage, which would require a different solution? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what steps his Ministry is taking to defend the rigs against subversion and sabotage, as opposed to the threat from the Warsaw Pact countries or anywhere else in war time?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a confusion between these different rôles. We have attempted to make plain the difference on a number of occasions. I made a statement in the House earlier this year about the peace-time rôle, and, in the last two or three weeks we have announced that the order has been placed for the vessels to carry out this requirement. We can only repeat that there is a distinction and that, as far as possible, we are providing against both sorts of danger.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current operations of the security forces in Northern Ireland.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 13th May 1975. The Army continues to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the difficult task of combating violence and terrorism in the Province, and the level of is operations continues to be related to the level of violence which occurs.

In view of the atrocious ambush near Forkill in which four very brave soldiers, one from Belfast and the others from Great Britain, died in defence of the United Kingdom, and in view of the references by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland yesterday to the fragility of the so-called cease-fire, can we be assured that security forces are on the fullest alert and that they have their eyes on the known organisers of terrorism who are at present openly at large?

Yes, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of security forces now in Northern Ireland and give an assurance that while the level of violence remains as intense as it is now there will be no reduction in the forces?

The number of forces in Northern Ireland at the moment is about 14,000. Any question of a reduction would depend entirely on the prevailing situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the representations made by the Sultan about the withdrawal of the Gurkha battalion from Brunei; and if he will make a statement.

As my right. hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs explained on 12th March, the talks have been adjourned while both sides study certain questions further. That remains the situation, and there will be further consultations with the Sultan before a final decision is taken on the withdrawal date.

Can the Secretary of State inform the House of any reason, other than a dogmatic desire to please the Left Wing, for this withdrawal, which will not save the taxpayers any money and will deprive the Gurkhas of a useful training area outside Hong Kong?

We recognise that this is not a cost-saving measure, but during the defence review commitments and capabilities were reviewed and this was one of the commitments. Subject to consultations with the Sultan, it is the intention to plan for a withdrawal. We shall have to await the next round of talks.

asked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with the TUC and CBI.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made to the House on 11th July, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who will support him wholeheartedly in the Lobby tonight welcome the support he has received from trade unions at the Durham Miners' Gala and elsewhere? However, is he also aware that we do not believe that support will continue to be forthcoming if there are further massive cuts in public expenditure? Is he aware that there is probably only a short time in which to work out a satisfactory voluntary incomes policy that avoids re-entry into either the thickets of a statutory policy which would be unworkable or the morass of so-called free collective bargaining?

I thank my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friends and I who attended the Durham Gala were gratified by the wholehearted reaction of that great mining community to the Government's proposals. With regard to public expenditure, that was dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech yesterday afternoon. I agree with my hon. Friend—and this was a point made by the Leader of the Opposition on 11th July—that we must use this year to work out some satisfactory plan for the period that follows. We must avoid the re-entry problems that almost invariably follow a period of this kind.

Can the Prime Minister say whether it is likely, in his view, that by the winter of 1976–77 unemployment will be at 2 million?

That is not, in our view, likely. It is a fact that we are facing a very serious rise in unemployment in common with every other advanced country in the world. The fact that it has not risen as much in this country up to the present time and that exports have been maintained and industrial production has fallen less is no cause for satisfaction for anyone. The Western world—this came out clearly at the Heads of Government conference last week—is deeply concerned about the virulence and depth of the world depression which, as many of us forecast, is now as bad as the 1930s in many respects.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Durham.

I was at the Durham Miners' Gala on 19th July, Sir, and I have at present no plans for a further visit to the area.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has found, in Dur- ham or anywhere else, any appreciation of the attitude of the official Opposition, who claim that they want a more dramatic cut in the rate of inflation than that proposed by the Government while at the same time demanding cuts in housing and food subsidies, which would simply increase the cost of living of the ordinary worker and, therefore, make inflation still worse?

I found no support for the views of the Opposition whether from the Durham miners or the leaders of other coalfields who were present at the gala. I think that some of the miners felt it might have been a good idea if they had invited leaders of the Opposition to Durham. If they spent more time with mineworkers and less with monetarists, they would learn a great deal more about not only the muscle and backbone but also the heart of Britain.

Even if the Prime Minister cannot visit Durham, can he find a way of telling the Durham miners why he had abandoned his commitment to free collective bargaining and done a U-turn in favour of statutory controls which he has opposed in the past few years?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we said in our manifesto that these matters should be dealt with in consultation with the trade union movement. That movement has now made a historic pronouncement which the previous Prime Minister spent many months trying to get. He was right to do so. We are fortifying with legislation, which is to be debated tomorrow, measures and protections required to make a reality of the voluntary proposals and policy of the TUC.

Will my right hon, Friend accept that my constituents and I are deeply touched by the solicitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) in asking my right hon. Friend to visit us? Will he, however, comment on the most notable speech of Mr. Lawrence Daly last Saturday from the platform at Durham?

It was indeed a notable speech. Mr. Daly made certain comments about Members' pay which might not be totally acceptable in all quarters of the House, but what he said about the decision of the NUM executive and the advice he was giving in respect of the coalfield ballot this year was extremely encouraging, coming as it did after the decision of the executive. I should like to hear some praise and support from the Opposition Front Bench for what Mr. Daly had the courage to say last Saturday.

If the Prime Minister finds it possible to go to Durham, he could do so by going through my constituency of Rochdale. If he did that, would he be prepared to tell the textile workers in my constituency when he proposes that the Government should make their statement on textiles? Is he aware that I have in my hand a telegram from the trade union movement in Rochdale certifying that the closure of another textile mill affecting 250 employees has been announced in Rochdale today? When are we to know the Government's policy on this matter?

The hon. Member is perfectly fair in what he says. If one went to Durham through the textile areas of Yorkshire and Lancashire I am sure that one would hear expressed the sense of urgency to which the hon. Member referred. My right hon. Friend has made clear that a statement will be made within the next few days.

As the Prime Minister has returned to the point about the Government's policy on inflation, will he say something about the reserve powers? Is he saying that he will drop the reserve powers in the Bill if he cannot find a way of absolving the unions from the consequences of refusing to abide by a court's decision, or will he go ahead with them in any event?

We have not said that at all. The House will be debating these matters further, and I hope to catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The Bill which we have said we will hold in reserve and would introduce if the general strategy was imperilled would not involve the problem about which the right hon. Lady is rightly concerned. The question she has put raises issues which do not arise.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the National Union of Mineworkers at Scarborough on 7th July on economic matters.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the economic situation to the National Union of Mineworkers at Scarborough on 7th July.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House a copy of his public speech on inflation to the National Union of Mineworkers conference at Scarborough on 7th July.

I did so on the same day, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many people outside the Parliamentary Labour Party will welcome the way in which the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers has agreed not to try to sabotage immediately what many people have described as phase 4 of the last Conservative Government's incomes policy? Will he accept that he should be grateful that on this occasion Her Majesty's Opposition are not acting as Scargill's parliamentary fifth column, trying to destroy Her Majesty's Government regardless of the effects on the nation or inflation?

I rather formed the view, from reading a story, which I am sure will be denied by the Opposition Front Bench, about some motion that the Opposition were putting down on the Order Paper to reject the means of carrying out the White Paper proposals, that they were specifically identifying themselves with the fifth column of those who want to see the White Paper fail. I may be wrong. Perhaps that was for them just a rush of blood to the head after midnight. However, the motion certainly appeared on the Order Paper. If the Opposition are to vote against the Bill which is the legislative vehicle for the White Paper, which I am sure in general they wish to commend to the House, I believe that that would be an act of parliamentary sabotage.

When my right hon. Friend is speaking in the country, will he carefully explain that the aspect of wage restraint in the White Paper and in the Government's policy reflects only one side of TUC policy and that a lot of TUC policy has been rejected so far by the Government? Will he undertake to continue discussions with the TUC about the rest of its statement?

I am glad that my hon. Friend responds to the initiative taken by the TUC. He knows that this is the substantial majority view of the General Council and that since the General Council decision union after union has come into line with it. I am sure that in forming his view about the proposals before the House my hon. Friend will attach great weight to the fact that the policy has been agreed with the TUC. We discussed and debated in direct discussions with the TUC, at NEDC and at yesterday morning's meeting of the liaison committee all aspects of the TUC's proposals and wider issues of economic policy.

As one who hopes that the White Paper will be successful and who will be voting for it tonight, I hope the Prime Minister is aware that many of us who have grave reservations about details of the legislation to be debated tomorrow and the reserve powers which have not been disclosed believe that it would be very much better if they were disclosed to the TUC, the CBI and the House of Commons. Why are the Government so coy about telling us precisely what reserve powers they have in mind?

The right hon. Gentleman has made clear his general support for the White Paper. He will have every opportunity to debate on the Bill later this week any anxieties he may have about the operation of the legislation before the House. As for the measure that we have said we must keep in reserve, hoping that we shall never have to introduce it but which we shall introduce if the general strategy is threatened, this was dealt with fully by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday afternoon.

In the speech to which the Questions refer the Prime Minister rightly stressed the need for consent, and that obviously goes far wider than the miners. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position of employers in the light of his answers today? After 1st August, will not employers be entering into commitments with their work force which might constitute a legal offence of which they have no knowledge, carrying a penalty of which they have no idea? Is not the only certainty that they will receive no protection if other people try to force them to break the law?

The hon. Member has misunderstood the situation. There is no question of employers entering into commitments after 1st August which they might find retrospectively to be against the law. There has been a misunderstanding here and I understand why, but the hon. Gentleman need have no anxieties on that score.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will find it much less pleasant to address the NUM in 12 months' time if the rate of inflation is still between 15 per cent, and 18 per cent.? Will he concede that there is a real prospect of that, given the increases in the pipeline from last year's and this year's wage round and from raw material price increases? Will he take action to tighten up the prices side of the package to try to make sure that this does not happen?

I agree that that would be the position in a year's time if what my hon. Friend predicts were to happen. No one realises this more clearly than the NUM and the other unions, and that is why they are taking such a robust line in support of the Government's policy. On the question of the Price Code, and this is to some extent involved in the legislation before the House tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection—I do not think that Hansard is yet available with the full record of what she said—dealt fully with some of these matters last night. She made clear that apart from the specific measures she is proposing, some by way of legislation, it is not the case that the present level of profits in some of the key sectors of wholesale, retail and manufacturing are such that it will be possible greatly to tighten them up without very serious effects, possibly on employment.

I welcome much of the Prime Minister's rather belated conversion to realism as demonstrated in his Scarborough speech. Will he explain why he spent so long blaming the problems of the economy on such bogies as wet hens running around the cocktail circuit and why he did not speak in blunt language to the miners and the other unions much sooner?

I did. I gave my view to the TUC last September. On the point about a quotation from a broadcast some weeks ago, this was because there was a concerted drive against sterling based on a lot of gossip at the very time when it was becoming clear that our balance of payments deficit was falling to one quarter of what it was a year ago. Since then successively we have had very good export and trade figures. In the first six months of this year we achieved a current deficit of less than £500 million—an annual rate of £1,000 million—against estimates of £4 billion and £5 billion last year. This is a remarkable achievement and justifies what I said about some who are selling sterling short.

As the House and the people have been conned on several occasions into buying the gold brick of a statutory incomes policy, is it not sheer gall that we are presented with it once again, except that on this occasion the gold brick will not even pass before our very eyes?

I do not know about the gold bricks and the gall around here. However, the position was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the legislation which we are asking the House to pass to fortify the voluntary policy agreed with the TUC will be debated by the House tomorrow. Any other legislation will be in reserve only in case the strategy breaks down. The House would have the first opportunity of debating that legislation before it could possibly become law. As to what the legislation will contain, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in detailed terms yesterday what the Government have in mind.

—

Order. There are 75 hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate which is to follow.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm, with respect to Item No. 6 on the Order Paper—the ill-starred motion by the Attorney-General—that the fact that it has lost its star means that it is not debatable in the House tonight and that it merely receives unanimous assent, or, given one objection, it again fails? Would you be good enough to confirm that to the House? I think there is general interest in it.

The star—the asterisk has nothing to do with it. The point is that it is now on the Order Paper, and the hon. Member will know that it can proceed only if it is not objected to.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend security of tenure and rent regulations to tenants of non-resident landlords where meals are provided which are not prepared on the premises. The Bill that I seek leave to introduce is part of a continuing fight against evasion of the laws guaranteeing security of tenure to tenants. Every time Parliament acts to protect tenants from excessive rents or eviction at the whim of a landlord, the more cunning and unscrupulous landlords embark on the search for loopholes in the law.

When the tenants of unfurnished accommodation were granted security of tenure and tenants of furnished accommodation were not, it was common practice for many landlords to seek to provide a collection of cheap, tatty and often delapidated furniture to transform their accommodation into the furnished category. Now, despite the synthetic indignation of the estate agents and the Conservative Party, that distinction has been abolished in the 1974 Rent Act.

Now there is evidence that an even more ingenious and dishonest device is being used to ensure that accommodation can be portrayed as something that it patently is not so that tenants can be charged extortionate rents and be kicked out if they complain. That device is the provision of food—not food cooked on the premises by the proprietor and served to his tenants but food delivered by the landlords as a device to seek to have their accommodation regarded as hotels rather than as rented accommodation.

Such meals are not available to tenants as optional extras or as service provided by catering landlords deeply concerned with the nutrition of their tenants. The acceptance of meals is a condition imposed on those seeking housing—a condition imposed in order to deprive them of their other rights. The accommodation provided is not that of a five star or even a no-star hotel. It is a strange hotel indeed that provides no bed linen, or installs meters for all gas and electricity, It is a pretty poor hotel that fails even to provide breakfast on most mornings when it has contracted to provide it.

The landlords involved in this scandalous practice are driving a coach and horses right through the 1974 Rent Act. In this case it is a coach disguised as a food wagon. This meals-on-wheels service provides, without doubt, the most expensive food in the country. The provision of a few eggs and bacon can increase the income from the property tenfold. By the evasion of Rents Acts one estate agent in the Medway towns, namely, C. O. Bills Ltd., is already charging two families occupying one house a total of £50 a week in rent. One of the firm's directors, Mr. Michael Bills, is planning to build himself a £300,000 golf course—paid for, no doubt, by his ill-gotten gains extorted from homeless families.

This company's victims cone not just from the Gillingham area in which this estate agent's premises are situated, but they include constituents of mine on the council waiting lists in Medway and Gravesham. The company's directors grow rich while its tenants live in rodent-infested, damp and inadequate accommodation. The rents are too high for most people to afford so the county council's social services department has to contribute to them from the ratepayers' money. These firms are, therefore, concerned not only in exploiting the homeless but also in milking the ratepayers.

The Bill is not aimed at eliminating the genuine hotel or boarding house. It is intended to clip the wings of those unscrupulous landlords and estate agents who pose as hoteliers because they see the chance of making extortionate profit from sub-standard accommodation and the opportunity to line their pockets at the expense of the homeless or the ratepayers.

The unscrupulous people involved in this racket are not making extra accommodation available. Their activities are actually reducing the number of permanent homes which are available. They create ther own demand by ensuring that the sort of accommodation which people need is not available to them.

I ask the House for leave to introduce the Bill so that we may put an end to the scurrilous activities of these parasitic landlords before this practice grows and becomes a national scandal instead of a local council scandal.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Ovenden, Mr. Ivor Clemitson, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Mike Noble, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. J. W. Rooker and Mr. Ron Thomas.