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

Army operations continue throughout Northern Ireland in support of the police in the task of combating violence and terrorism. The considerable success of the Security forces' operations is reflected in the high number of persons—over 440 already this year—who have been arrested and charged with serious crimes.

While wishing to congratulate the security forces on the success of their operations, may I ask the Secretary of State to say something more about the deployment of troops in the Province? Will he give an assurance that the security forces will not be run down to a point at which the police find themselves not only performing their normal duties but being forced into a military rôle?

I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance on the last point he raised. On the first point, there are 14,500 Regular troops serving in Northern Ireland at the moment, and of these, as the hon. Gentleman may well be aware, the Spearhead Battalion was withdrawn a week or so ago. It left a gap in South Armagh, and redeployment has taken place within Northern Ireland in order that we can retain sufficient security forces in the South to combat the violence there.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on the United Ulster Unionist Bench welcome the trend towards the concentration of the forces in Northern Ireland in the areas which are more directly threatened and that we would like to see this carried further so that it encourages a larger rôle for the UDR and increased activity in the police?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I read with great interest the report of his speech in the Army debate. We are not at variance on the points he made. It is absolutely essential that we should step up the rôle of the RUC and also try to recruit more to the UDR. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is giving consideration to the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about more Regulars in the UDR.

Thank you.

While joining in my hon. Friend's tribute to the security forces, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks that after so many years of troubles it might be time for a single director of operations to be appointed to control the security work not only of the Regular Army and the UDR but of the RUC as well?

I think the present GOC Northern Ireland—General House—has sufficient forces to be able to carry out precisely the rôle to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Does the Secretary of State feel that sufficient use is being made of Royal Military Police personnel in the transition from military patrols to police patrols?

Yes. As a matter of fact, during the admittedly slow and gradual transition to increasing the primacy of the police, the Royal Military Police are playing a part in the operation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet his NATO counterparts.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) on 6th April.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had any discussions with his NATO colleagues about future strategy in the light of the possibility of a Communist Government in Italy?

First of all, the Foreign Secretaries of the NATO nations will be considering that. I think we should be cautious about our approach. No positive view is emanating to say that the Communists will take over Italy. The election still has to be held, and it would be premature to make any public comments about that at this stage.

Has my right hon. Friend yet informed his NATO counterparts of the British decision to produce tritium in the United Kingdom, which means that for the first time this country will have a totally independent nuclear deterrent and, if so, why the Government have taken this decision?

This has nothing to do with my NATO counterparts. This was a purely British decision, in order that we could produce our own tritium and be independent of the United States. Marginally, when it is completed, the operation will be cheaper for us, but we shall still not be independent of the United States in terms of the Polaris programme.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether it was because of representations from our NATO allies that his noble Friend felt obliged to remind the other place that any weakening by us in defence has much more effect on the Alliance than we may imagine?

I have explained precisely that point before—that although, in military strategy and the deployment of weapons and troops, we play a part that is as good as that of any of our NATO allies, our Western European friends and our American allies believe that our psychological presence and our strength are just as important as the military strength that we have within the Alliance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if plans are in hand to extend civilian production at Royal ordnance factories.

The Royal ordnance factories at present have a growing volume of work. There is no surplus capacity. However, I shall be glad to consider any specific proposals my hon. Friend has in mind.

Does the Minister agree that there is considerable anxiety among workers at Royal ordnance factories at the Government's proposals to cut the tail rather than the teeth in this area of public spending? Would it not be ridiculous to waste the skills and abilities of such workers when they could be engaged on useful civilian production?

I certainly agree with the second part of the question. I am sorry if there is any anxiety, because the Royal ordnance factories employ more men and women today than they did two years ago. That applies also to the factory in my hon. Friend's constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will give a guarantee that there will be no further cuts in defence expenditure.

As I said in the debate on 31st March, we must judge the resources that we put into our defence in relation to the threat, and against the strength of the economy. While either of these criteria may change, I believe that for the years immediately ahead we have the balance about right.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that our defences have now been cut to the core and that any further defence cuts would have a most serious effect on our allies and on those serving in the forces.

I do not accept that our defences have been cut to the core. Neither would I personally allow them to be cut to an extent that would endanger our security, or would mean that they were approaching bedrock—[Interruption]The reference that was made was "approaching bedrock". I do not think that they have approached bedrock. Neither do I think that my colleagues would ask me to allow them to do so.

There may be different views in different parts of the House about the level of defence expenditure, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we should all deplore waste? Does he not further agree that the fact that about 10 per cent. of Ministry of Defence houses are empty and that many have been empty for many years is a waste that should be looked at? Does he agree that his Department should consider that matter more closely?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. No doubt he has received replies to questions posed to my Minister of State on this matter. He will know that, through the defence review and the Public Expenditure Survey cuts, we are now releasing more married accommodation to local authorities and the Property Services Agency than ever before. I expect that, over the next few years, 7,000 houses will be released.

Apart from the next defence cuts, when will the Secretary of State give us adequate information about the last defence cuts? Why will he not give the House information about the 40 items of Army equipment that have been either cancelled or deferred? Is he trying to fool the Russians, or this House?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman takes that line. I should have thought that during the past two years, in defence and Service debates and the publication of material, we have given far more information on defence than have any previous administration.

Will my right hon. Friend always bear in mind that the building up of fighting power and armaments will always create danger between nations? Since the might of Russia seems to have been increasing tremendously over the past few years, what consultation has he had with his counterparts in the USSR?

I have had no consultation with my counterparts in the USSR, but if my hon. Friend peruses the last defence White Paper, he will note that we have recognised that, even in the past 12 months the threat has increased—particularly on the central front.

The right hon. Gentleman just now misquoted the Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that "absolute bedrock" had been reached and did not use the phrase "approaching bedrock". But even if the right hon. Gentleman had got his quotation right, surely there can be no question that the Russian threat is not diminishing, but is growing year by year. Therefore, why can he not give the guarantee sought in the Question?

Because I do not think that I can prophesy to what extent the economic circumstances of this nation may change in the foreseeable future. It would be absolute folly for a nation to support massive defence expenditure while it had an economically ill condition and therefore proved an unreliable partner in NATO, anyway.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservatives, who seem so deeply perturbed about cuts, actually want massive increases in defence expenditure, as they have made clear over and over again? Does he further accept that many of us on the Government Benches believe that we are adequately defended and do not agree that there should be massive increases?

Yes. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Of course the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) and the Leader of the Opposition have never yet explained how much they want to put back on to defence expenditure, where that money would come from, and what other services would suffer as a result.

Is not the Secretary of State concerned that the United States of America so assesses the situation that it has increased defence expenditure and that France has just announced a 20 per cent. increase in defence expenditure? Does that not concern the Government?

Of course, I watch the budgets of our NATO allies with great interest. The Americans have put forward an increased defence budget, which has not yet been accepted by Congress. I have also noted the recent speech by one of the French military leaders, noticing that the French conventional forces have been rather starved of expenditure while they have been building up their nuclear missilery. They are trying to rectify that imbalance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the quantities of ammunition made available for practice are sufficient for the purpose.

Yes. The training scales for ammunition are continually being reviewed and appropriate provision made to meet them. Shortages in supply of an individual nature occur from time to time, but the position has improved over the last few years, and should continue to do so.

Does the Minister accept that that is a somewhat complacent reply and that there is real anxiety among the professionals wherever one visits any Army establishments? Will he please give us a better answer?

I do not think that I am being complacent at all. In fact, I am surprised that the hon. Lady made that assertion. There has been an all-round improvement in the last year.

Does the Minister agree that there is concern about the massive increases in the cost of ammunition used for practice in the Services? Will he see whether he can offset some of the cost by putting it on some of the overseas arms sales, so as not to reduce the efficiency of our forces by not allowing them to use sufficient practice ammunition?

That is another question, but I should have thought that it would not have been welcome to the House and the country if we were to load the cost on overseas arms sales to a point at which we lost out in this valuable export.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and men are now serving in the Royal Navy.

On 1st April 1976, 9,311 officers and 55,130 ratings were serving in the Royal Navy.

May I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in it? Since the Russians now have over 300 submaries, is he satisfied with the size of the British naval contribution to NATO?

I am grateful to the hon. Member. I remind him that the United Kingdom is a member of an alliance—NATO. I am satisfied that that Alliance is capable of deterring aggression by the Warsaw Pact. I also remind the House that within that Alliance the Royal Navy makes a vital contribution in the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel areas and that its contribution is left virtually undiminished by the defence review and the recent PESC exercise.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend and look forward to many interesting exchanges at Question Time. Has he seen the report presented by the Pentagon to the Senate last week, which showed that the NATO countries had manufactured twice as many large combat ships as the Warsaw Pact countries over the last 15 years? Does he accept those figures?

I am familiar with the view that my hon. Friend takes of that report and I hope that he will accept my assurance that I had planned to raise it with him in tomorrow's debate and to explain how Mr. Rumsfeldt, for example, takes a totally different view from that of my hon.Friend.

How can the hon. Gentleman justify the reduction in the size of the British Navy at a time when the Soviet Navy is expanding dramatically?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was following me. I assured the House that the recent exercise and the previous defence review both left the Navy's vital contribution within NATO virtually undiminished.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the British component of the NATO nuclear capability is affected by the recent changes in United States targeting policy.

United States targeting plans are consistent with NATO's policy of flexibility in response. The British contribution to NATO's nuclear capability is targeted in accordance with NATO policy, and these plans are kept constantly under review.

In spite of that answer, does the Secretary of State accept that the credibility of the British component is dependent upon the counter-city and not the counter-force strategy? Will he reconsider the dubious claim in his White Paper that this could be used in any future conflict in a controlled and effective way?

The change in targeting policy by the United States has given it a further option of limited response and therefore, instead of the industrial and city targets being the first priority, it can if it wishes now target on the nuclear missile silos. Therefore, it has a new dimension. We are not involved in that targeting.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nuclear capability of the United States and the Soviet Union is enough to blow the whole world sky-high over and over again? Is he aware that many of us believe that the capability that we have is a drop in the ocean. and is totally unnecessary in such circumstances?

It may be a drop in the ocean relatively speaking, compared with the massive overkill nuclear capacity and capability of the United States and the USSR, but if NATO unravelled and Britain was forced back on its own nuclear strategic deterrent we would not be subject to nuclear blackmail, because we would still have a second strike nuclear capability.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the latest Government policy with regard to the selling of arms to South Africa.

The Government's policy on arms sales to South Africa was announced by the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 4th December 1974. There has been no change in that policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Government side of the House we are not so much concerned with known changes in the policy as with the apparent breaches of that policy which are frequently reported in the British Press? Does he not agree that there should be a thorough investigation because if reports are true it could damage British-African relations and constitute a threat to our global defence strategy?

I am not aware of any breach in the policy on the sale of arms to South Africa. I am only aware of the case in which a firm happened to wrongly label goods going to South Africa, but once that was found out the matter was subject to legal examination. Apart from that case, there have been no breaches in the policy.

Does the Secretary of State accept that further advances of anti-Western Powers from Central Africa to the South would be contrary to British interests? Does he accept what flows from that, and will he make those consequences known to the world?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to a wider question, which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Is there not a firm in Jersey that is sending nuclear equipment of some kind to South Africa, with or without the British Government's knowledge?

Aviation (Jersey) Ltd. is the firm to which I was referring.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of defence sales arising from exports in the calendar year 1976; what types of defence equipment are being sold; which areas are likely to benefit; and what is the estimate of the employment involved

It is expected that a wide range of naval, Army and aerospace equipment will be exported by United Kingdom industry and by the Royal ordnance factories during 1976–77 and that this will be worth approximately £700 million. It is estimated that this amount directly creates 70,000–80,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, although many more jobs in supporting industry are dependent on them.

I welcome that information, but will the Secretary of State explain the Government's policy on the acceptance and implementation of foreign orders for military equipment designed and capable of use only for defensive purposes?

When examining individual export orders there are always some hair-line cases, and my hon. Friend has one or two examples in his constituency that may have suffered because of it. We have to consider all relevant political, military, security and finance implications when considering sales of equipment to any country.

Does the Secretary of State agree that overseas defence sales are often hindered because firm orders have not been placed for the same merchandise for our own defence purposes? Will he take that into account and make some changes, so that the pump-priming operation has this export spin-off?

I recognise that, but the hon. Gentleman must also recognise that the defence equipment manufacturers would always like to see the Army, Navy and Air Force buy their equipment first, because that gives them added impetus when they try to sell abroad. But I hope that they will not rely too much on that. They should be able to sell good equipment to foreign Services.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the multi-rôle combat aircraft project were cancelled, as has been suggested in some quarters, the effect on employment in the aero-defence industries both at BAC and Rolls-Royce would be disasterous?

If the MRCA contract were cancelled and no further British military aircraft were developed, 24,000 jobs would go immediately in the airframe industry, and with consequent reductions in Rolls-Royce, leaving it to private enterprise, there would be hardly an aircraft industry left.

Has the Secretary of State seen recent reports which suggest that this country has lost, and France has gained, important arms sales orders to Egypt and other places because of our failure to offer equivalent credit terms? Can the right hon. Gentleman deny those reports?

I can neither confirm nor deny such reports; it depends on the equipment to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring. We have established a working relationship with Egypt. Egypt is keen to take British equipment, and a number of our firms have orders from the Egyptians. There is a problem involving credit, but it would be folly to start a credit race on arms sales.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will order an investigation in the alleged involvement of Territorial Army units with uniformed neo-Fascists of the so-called "Column 88" during exercises in Epping Forest.

I have no evidence at all—and have been unable to find any—about events of the kind that my hon. Friend describes. However, on an incident involving the Army Cadet Corps and Column 88 in the West Country, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 29th April.

Is the Minister aware that that is not a wholly satisfactory answer? Will he give an assurance that, to the best of his knowledge, no present or former members of the British National Socialist movement, Spearhead, the League of St. George, or Column 88 hold commissions or other ranks in the Territorial Army or Army Cadet Forces? If not, is he prepared to order an investigation into a dossier that I shall be happy to send to him?

I can answer "Yes" to the assurance for which my hon. Friend asked. I shall be interested to see any dossier that he may have. If there are things to be investigated, that will be done.

Is the Minister saying that no such exercises have taken place in Epping Forest? There is considerable concern and resentment in my constituency, and beyond, at the information, news or rumours that the lovely forest has been misused for parades of political paranoia.

I am saying that there is no evidence available to us that there have been any of these peculiar goings-on in Epping Forest. What I know of Column 88 is that it is a small drinking club of neo-Nazi nut cases. It is very unfortunate that lurid Press comment has, amongst other things, seemed to be damaging to the Territorial Army. This is totally without justification.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to Portsmouth Dockyard.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit Portsmouth Dockyard.

Is the Minister aware that alongside in Portsmouth lies what is left of HMS "Bulwark", our last Commando ship? In view of the Government's commitments to amphibious forces, how do the Government propose to transport the Royal Marines and their helicopters in future?

Although HMS "Bulwark" has been taken off the active list since 31st March this year, her material condition is being maintained until decisions can be taken about the Royal Navy's ASW capability. The amphibious forces have been reduced, but only so that we can concentrate on the central areas of NATO. This decision arose from the defence review. But there remain a brigade headquarters, 3 Commando Group, associated Wessex helicopters and Army support and—to come to the hon. Gentleman's last question—two assault ships. Moreover, HMS "Hermes" will also retain a secondary rôle as a Commando ship.

Is the Minister aware that so much of our commitment is now chan- nelled through NATO, and so many cuts have been made elsewhere, that we now lack the flexibility that the Royal Marines—properly mounted—and small surface ships could provide?

I hope that that is not the case. I am taking the earliest opportunity to visit the Royal Marines on the ground and watch them in exercises later this year. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy myself on that question.

If my hon. Friend has an opportunity to visit Portsmouth Dockyard, will he confirm the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee on the possibility of creating a trading fund for the Royal dockyards?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am very interested in that recommendation. I was in Devonport Dockyard only last Wednesday, attending my first Dockyards Policy Board, and I took the first opportunity of making my interest manifest. I intend to pursue it.

Whilst adding to the congratulations already given to the hon. Gentleman on becoming First Lord of the Admiralty, may I ask him to realise that all through history the ships of the Royal Navy have gone out from Portsmouth Dockyard for one reason only—to defend our trade routes? Will he make sure during his term of office that that receives more emphasis than it has in recent years?

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I share his awareness of, and concern about, this prime rôle of the Royal Navy, and I intend to dwell upon it in my contribution to our debate tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the miniaturisation of Polaris missiles.

No, Sir.

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has not been more forthcoming. Does he accept that there is a great deal of concern about the miniaturisation of Polaris, as a possible forerunner of a new independent missile? Will he assure the House that that is not the case, and that the contract with British Nuclear Fuels for tritium, for example, is not part of a go-it-alone nuclear missile programme that we do not want and cannot afford?

I explained to the House earlier that the independent production of tritium has nothing to do with developing a solely United Kingdom nuclear missile programme. I have told the House many times that the research and development that is going on to maintain the effectiveness of our Polaris missiles has nothing to do with MIRV-ing. We are not proceeding with Poseidon, and we are not developing another generation of strategic nuclear weaponry.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total capital cost of closing Ashchurch and Luddenhall CVDs, and of rebuilding Marchington/Hilton CVD, including redundancy payments and mothballing the closed depots.

I have nothing to add to the broad estimates provided in answer to the hon. Member's Question on 26th February. Closed depots would not be retained but would be declared surplus and disposed of by the normal procedure.

Is the Minister aware that, instead of costing the £2 million that he originally told me, it now appears that it will cost £14 million? Has the Department got its figures wrong? What is the point of a defence cut that results in much higher expenditure?

As I stated in my answer, I have no further details to give at this stage, nor do I accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. The estimates will be validated before final decisions are taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the long lead decision for the AWACS project.

I would expect NATO Ministers to consider this matter at the June meeting of the Defence Planning Committee.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all NATO commanders-in-chief have said that the project should have top priority, and that it is very important from the point of view not only of early warning but of command and control?

I entirely agree that it is a very important matter. The issues are also complicated, and a great deal of money is at risk. For that reason it will be some time before final decisions are made.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that we shall not allow so much time to elapse that we find ourselves forced to place an order for a less desirable form of radar surveillance?

I give that assurance. The only likely choice is between the AWACS project and the Nimrod alternative. There is a great deal to recommend both. That is one reason why the process of decision-making is rather lengthy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit BAOR.

I have at present no plans to do so.

When the Secretary of State next goes to Germany, will he carefully examine the tactical arguments that persuaded the Germans to remodel their army on the brigade system at a time when our defence cuts are doing away with our brigade headquarters? Will he look closely at the problems of collaboration that are likely to arise?

I shall be only too pleased to do that. With regard to the problems of restructuring, which came up a great deal during the Army debate, tests and trials have taken place, and amendments must be made. I am receiving professional military opinion in NATO which welcomes the changes that we are making.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Secretary-General of NATO, will he emphasise that in terms of defence per head of population the United Kingdom is presently contributing the sixth largest share to NATO, and that if there is anxiety about NATO, fuelled by hysterical speeches from the Opposition Benches, it is up to those NATO countries whose economies are far stronger than others to shell out a bit more?

I should not wish to use that argument when I next meet the Secretary-General. Incidentally, I met him last week. My hon. Friend talks about the levels of defence expenditure. We are spending less in absolute defence expenditure than are the Germans and French. Therefore, if my hon. Friend wants me to take notice of the manifesto commitment my reply is that we have already done it.

Will the Secretary of State put in the Library the statements by the NATO chiefs welcoming what we are doing?

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to peruse the many communiqués we have issued from the DPC, I can tell him that they should be in the Library.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions exist for the return to the United Kingdom of the bodies of relatives of United Kingdom Service men who have died abroad, where a desire has been expressed for burial in the United Kingdom.

It is for the Service man himself to make any necessary arrangements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present provisions for dealing with the problem have resulted in the relatives of one of my constituents having to look to pay about £700 to bring back to the United Kingdom a young baby who died in Germany? Does he not consider it is time the provisions were examined with a view to preventing Service men being faced with such a cost when they suffer a tragedy of that kind?

I know the very sad case that my hon. Friend has brought to our attention. There are problems in finding a better answer. That is one reason why an insurance scheme has been devised. If it will help my hon. Friend I shall be happy to look at the existing provisions and consider in what circumstances they could be changed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundancies amongst military and civilian staff are now expected to result either directly or indirectly from the Government's successive reviews of defence spending.

I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) on 9th March.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that those civilian employees facing redundancies will be given every opportunity of alternative Government employment, particularly in areas such as mine that are already suffering from industrial decline?

I certainly give that assurance. My hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to the special problems of the Woolwich area, where there has been a traditional link with the Services. I appreciate the amount of disruption, anxiety and uncertainty that exists. We shall do all we can for those who have served the Services very loyally over many years.

Will the Minister explain how it is that since he is unable to tell us, within 5,000 either way, how many Ministry of Defence civilian employees will be made redundant, he can possibly be precise about the savings made by cutting them?

If the hon. Member will refresh his memory and read the report of what I said on 9th March he will see that I gave very clear indications of the size of redundancies over the period to 1979–80. It is quite unreasonable to have more specific information, particularly when consultations must be carried on with the trade unions and we are anxious to make the best possible arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the Secretary-General of NATO.

I met Dr. Luns when he was in London on 4th May. I expect to meet him again at the NATO spring ministerial meetings in Brussels next month.

Since Britain and the NATO European allies are to a large extent dependent upon supplies from trade routes outside NATO's direct area of responsibility, has the Secretary of State discussed with the Secretary-General of NATO—and if not, why not?—the practical measures that NATO is taking to ensure adequate protection for our merchant shipping against the Soviet naval threat in these areas?

Perhaps the hon. Member has not followed the close questioning on this matter which has taken place over the past 12 months. The Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, commissioned a study two years ago which is now complete, and has been sent to the different defence ministers of NATO for professional military opinion, and this will be discussed in the near future. That study is about the operating of NATO vessels outside areas to protect shipping lanes in war-time only.

Has the Secretary of State grasped the implications of what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden)? While, nationally, Great Britain is tenth in GNP per capita among the 14 active members of NATO, its contribution to NATO is sixth on a per capita basis, and therefore there is an imbalance. Will my right hon. Friend draw this to the attention of the Secretary-General of NATO when he next meets him?

I am sure that the Secretary-General of NATO is aware of this. It my hon. Friend accepts the manifesto commitment that we should bring defence spending down, as a percentage of GNP, to that of our major European allies, he will accept that we were bound to do that, because we spent more. But if one takes it as a per capita or absolute level of defence spending, our major European allies, Germany and France, spend more than we do.

As Italy appears to be in some danger of going Communist, what action are the Government taking to ensure that as few as possible of our military secrets are shared with Italy?

I thought that I gave an indication of our cautious approach in this matter earlier in Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now set up a new committee of inquiry into the amount of land being held by his Department in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that the Nugent Committee made many recommendations that have still not been carried out? In 1973 our defence requirements were rather different, and there is a strong case now for releasing more areas of defence land in areas of outstanding natural beauty for the use of the general public.

It is less than two years since this Government accepted, with minor reservations, all the proposals of the Defence Land Committee, under Lord Nugent. A great many of the recommendations have already been dealt with, and it is absurd to suggest that in less than two years there should be another major inquiry.

Is the Minister aware that certain proposals have been made concerning possible use of new sites on Bodmin Moor, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty, for use for military training purposes? Will he give an assurance that the Department does not favour this suggestion, made by the Department of the Environment during the current public inquiry?

This is another question. The hon. Member knows that a public inquiry is taking place in respect of Dartmoor and therefore it would be improper for me to comment at this stage.

Is the Minister aware that there are certain areas of former defence land in areas of outstanding natural beauty in Snowdonia National Park, which have not been adequately cleared and therefore are a great danger to the local population and to tourists?

If the hon. Member cares to write to me about any specific place in his constituency, I shall look at it.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic policy to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers at Blackpool on 25th April.

I did so on 26th April.

In that speech the Prime Minister said that most people would be better off with the Chancellor's pay proposals than they would with free collective bargaining. Does he intend that free collective bargaining should ever be restored, and, if so, when?

I learned a long time ago from Mr. Henry Hopkinson never to use the word "never", and I shall not do it now.

Does the Prime Minister agree that there was nothing in that speech that could be regarded as offering any firm assurances to representatives of the TUC about rents, fares, food subsidies, or prices generally, or about overall public expenditure in terms of the social wage? If he were the General Secretary of the TUC and Mr. Len Murray were Prime Minister, would lie feel that this was a good bargain, in the absence of any undertakings of that kind?

My hon. Friend has no doubt studied the speech that I made to delegates of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers Conference, but he did not have the advantage of hearing it. The delegates were generous enough to give me a standing ovation as I left the hall—which may have been because they were grateful that I had finished or because they approved of my argument, and approved of the way in which the case had been put—a case that is supported by the overwhelming majority of people in this country.

Does the Prime Minister recollect that towards the end of his speech he spoke not of controlling inflation but of creating other values which are generally appealing? Does he accept that as the recent local elections show, many council tenants wish to own the homes they live in? Will he give the House an assurance that his Government will do nothing to prevent the sale of council houses to council tenants?

I am not surprised at the right hon. Lady's ingenuity in bringing the local elections into a Question about a speech that I made at Blackpool two weeks beforehand. I have listened to what has been said about the subject of my speech recommending the acceptance of a bargain along the lines proposed by the Chancellor. I am still waiting to hear from the right hon. Lady whether she recommends it.

Answer the Question.

I am answering a Question related to my speech at Blackpool. It is the right hon. Lady who is wriggling, and trying to avoid the Question, and dragging in red herrings. As for council houses, if a Question is tabled on that matter it will be answered.

What I want to know from the right hon. Lady, and what the country as a whole wants to know is—even though her Back Benchers are trying to prevent me from getting the Question across—does she recommend this settlement made by the TUC to its members, or does she not?

The Prime Minister is paid to answer questions and we are paid to ask them. Why is he so afraid to answer my questions, especially since we took his home city?

The right hon. Lady is also paid, but not as much as I am, and she is paid to ask relevant questions. I note that once again she evades the question whether the Conservative Party supports the view of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who is against this settlement, or the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) who is grudgingly in favour of it. Where does the right hon. Lady perch on the twig between the two of them?

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

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that an official visit by him to Merseyside at this stage would be most welcome if only for the fact that it would provide the opportunity for him to answer the questions raised by 80,000-plus unemployed in Liverpool relating to how soon the Government's policies will be directed towards a reduction in that number? Is my right hon. Friend aware that instead of a rosy future for Merseyside there are predictions of yet further job losses, and that that is something to which the Government should pay attention?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his Question, because unemployment should be of deep concern to us all. For Merseyside, there is every reason for concern about the future situation as well as the present. I understand that discussion is going on between hon. Members and Ministers about some of the industries there, and I hope that this will continue. Basically, however, an improvement in Merseyside will come, I hope, with the upturn in the economy, which has already begun. It would be wrong to hold out false hopes of an early improvement in the unemployment situation, but if we overcome inflation through an acceptance of the TUC wage deal, and if we take other measures, I believe that Merseyside's unemployment will begin to fall.

Will the Prime Minister say, on a visit to Merseyside or elsewhere, whether the pay policy that gives 4½–5 per cent. to people at work will represent a transfer of resources to or away from families with children?

All of the proposals lower the standard of life of the British people over the next 12 months. I hope that that factor will not be avoided by anybody, and I hope that in its approach to the situation the Conservative Party will explain what it would do as an alternative.

In considering the problems of Merseyside, will my right hon. Friend consider especially the problems in the construction industry there, for which the levels of unemployment are the highest in the country? Is he aware that in the past the city council has reduced the level of house building? Will he therefore ask Ministers in the appropriate Department to impose the maximum pressure to get house building moving rapidly again on Merseyside?

I am aware of the serious position in the construction industry. Special steps have been taken. Council house building has been increased, although to the best of my recollection private house building has been fairly stagnant. I shall look into this problem and ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to discuss the matter with me. Generally, however, an improvement in the construction industry is again likely to take place in parallel with the upturn in the economy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my congratulations on being the first Prime Minister with the inestimable advantage of a naval training? As for the problems on Merseyside, will he look very broadly at the difficulties of the British merchant shipping industry, which frequently works from Merseyside, taking particular account of the extent to which it is being undercut by unfair competition from Soviet bloc shipping?

Shipping is extremely important to Merseyside. I shall look into this matter, as the hon. and gallant Member invites me to do. I thank him for his congratulations. I am glad to see that he has recovered and is in good voice.

Apart from the 80,000 unemployed adults, who include the 14,000 unemployed construction workers, there are 3,000 unemployed school leavers on Merseyside. My right hon. Friend recently emphasised the importance of profits in solving our problems. Is he aware that when profits were high unemployment on Merseyside was high? Does he agree that we need greater public control and direction of industry? What do the Government intend to do to ensure that this summer Merseyside school leavers will find jobs?

A number of steps have been taken through the job creation programme, the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, and the doubling of the temporary employment subsidy, all of which have helped to alleviate unemployment. I agree about the plight of the young people. The Government must pay special attention to that, so that when young people leave school they have the prospect of a job. But let us not hold out false hopes. The best return to prosperity for this country lies in an export-led upturn in production. If we can get that—and it is already beginning now, although I do not want to give the figures—[HON. MEMBERS "Why not?"]—because I want to be accurate— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) will find, when one day he stands at this Box as Prime Minister, that it is better to be accurate than to give figures that are not right and be challenged afterwards. There is now an increase in exports, which will continue. I would prefer the Government to do it this way than to embark upon domestic-led reflation, which would very shortly burst and ensure a return to an inflationary period, with more unemployment.

asked the Prime Minister if he has recently met the Commonwealth Secretary General.

Yes. I had a meeting with Mr. Ramphal last Thursday 6th May.

Did the Prime Minister ask the Secretary-General what action the Commonwealth Committee on Cyprus plans to take to protect that tragically divided island when the Turkish military authorities are introducing more Turks from the mainland into Cyprus and the number of Greek Cypriots in the north continues to diminish?

No, I did not discuss that point with the Secretary General, but perhaps the hon. Member will table a Question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is, I know, concerned about it.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the Secretary General what has happened to the Government's excellent initiative on commodities, taken at Kingston last year, which, judging by the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade at UNCTAD the other day, appears to have disappeared into a totally negative and unhelpful approach?

We discussed that matter, which has been discussed a number of times. The Government are most anxious to enter into a series of commodity - by - commodity arrangements, which would help the developing countries. However, when we are asking our own people to accept a voluntary reduction in their standard of life there are limits to what we can do in other directions.

In view of the unemployment levels, the shortage of housing and school places, and other factors in this country, will the Prime Minister ask the Commonwealth Secretariat for help on the difficult problem of British passport holders in East and Central Africa, perhaps to use its good offices with the Indian Government, bearing in mind that so many of these people originated from India.

No, I think that is a matter for us and not for the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

When my right hon. Friend met the Secretary-General did he refer to any initiative he might take for getting Commonwealth representatives to meet before UNCTAD, and was that possible? Does my right hon. Friend not realise that the speech by the Secretary of State for Trade was not a happy one for the Government, because it did not contain many positive proposals of which the Commonwealth Secretariat would have approved wholeheartedly?

The Government's policy is based to a considerable extent upon the report of the experts of the Commonwealth who met before the UNCTAD meeting and have been meeting regularly for the past 12 months. We have discussed these matters on a number of occasions. We wish and are ready to put in a great deal in order to ensure the success of these commodity agreements, but there are limits to what this country can do in present circumstances.

Remembering the important speech on commodities of the last Prime Minister, in Kingston, does not Dr. Kissinger's recent speech developing that theme produce a timely situation for a Commonwealth initiative, especially as many of the problems in these and other countries in the international monetary field have been caused by violent fluctuations in commodity prices?

That was the origin of my right hon. Friend's speech last year, in which I played some part. It is in order to achieve that end that we would like to see commodity arrangements entered into, commodity by commodity. That would be far better than the bottomless purse that would be needed if we had a general fund for this purpose. We are certain that this would improve the position of developing countries. There is a widespread concern—which I share—about the indebtedness of developing countries, which is rapidly increasing. We have an obligation to do what we can, but here are limits beyond which we cannot go in present circumstances.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the case of Mr. George John Davis.

At the Central Criminal Court on 18th March 1975 Mr. Davis was convicted of robbery and wounding with intent to resist arrest, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 17 and three years' imprisonment.

He applied to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. On 11th December 1975 the Full Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against conviction but ordered the sentence to run concurrently instead of consecutively.

After the trial, Mr. Davis and those who had been charged with him, but acquitted, made a number of complaints against the police. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis asked the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire to make available a senior police officer of his force to investigate these complaints in accordance with Section 49 of the Police Act 1964.

I have received interim reports from the detective superintendent who has undertaken this task. These reports relate principally to the identification of Mr. Davis by witnesses, and I have re-examined in the light of them the identification evidence on which Mr. Davis was convicted. As a result, I am satisfied that this evidence has been seriously weakened.

I do not have evidence of Mr. Davis' innocence to justify my recommending a free pardon. I have considered whether I should refer the case to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. But this would be a lengthy process and it is not at present clear that all the relevant material now before me could be considered by the court.

My conclusions about the shift in the balance of evidence in the case are such that it would not be right for Mr. Davis to remain in prison any longer. I have therefore decided to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to remit the remainder of Mr. Davis' sentence. He is being released today.

Since the investigation into the complaints made against the police by Mr. Davis and others has not yet been completed, it would not be right for me to discuss the complaints generally or the results of the investigation in this context in any detail. I would, however, say that my decision today in no sense prejudges the result of the investigation and in no way implies that any police officer has behaved improperly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it must be right for him to make clear that his decision in no sense prejudges the result of the investigation which, at this stage, is incomplete and in no way implies that any police officer has behaved improperly? At the same time, does he appreciate that if he is convinced that there is a clear shift in the balance of evidence, he is clearly right to act? As the decision he has chosen is somewhat unusual, can he give us some further reasons why he has chosen this alternative?

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks. It would be wrong, in view of the evidence available, to keep Mr. Davis in prison any longer. Putting the matter back to the Court of Appeal would necessarily involve a delay of many months, during which I do not think it would be right for this man to continue to serve his sentence. There are certain aspects of the report before me which it is easier to deal with by way of the prerogative, for which there are precedendents, than by going back to the Court of Appeal. This would not preclude going back to the Court of Appeal, if it were thought right, on the question whether the conviction should stand as opposed to the remission of the sentence.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the course he has taken means that this man's name has still not been cleared and he is therefore not in a position to claim compensation for wrongful arrest? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a man is either innocent or guilty and that if there is this substantial amount of doubt about the matter, this man's name should be cleared completely? Does not this situation emphasise again the need to reconsider the tests applied by the Home Secretary in the exercise of the prerogative, as suggested by the Devlin Committee?

There are two tests involved here—first, whether it is right that a free pardon should be given and, second, whether the verdict appears sufficiently unsafe that the sentence should not be allowed to stand. I am not in a position in which I think it would be right for me to give a free pardon. The Court of Appeal could test this at some stage in the future and I shall consider whether that should be done. Some of the evidence in this case has been considerably weakened, and that makes it right for me to take the course I have taken and to do so immediately.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people inside and outside the House who very much doubted the strength of the identification evidence in this case will welcome the decision to free George Davis? Does the fact that the report received by the right hon. Gentleman was an interim report leave open the possibility that a continued investigation could lead to a free pardon if, in the light of the evidence produced, that is thought appropriate? Will the opportunity still exist for George Davis to clear his name through procedures which are already in operation?

The report is the second interim report and I received it as recently as 6th May. I was anxious to act quickly in this matter. There will be a further and complete report which will deal mainly with the question of complaints against the police rather than more specifically with the position of Mr. Davis. I have indicated that I should be prepared to consider, when the full report has been received and considered, whether it will be appropriate for the Court of Appeal to look further at the matter with a view to what the hon. Member has in mind.

Can my right hon. Friend explain to hon. Members who have no legal training what kind of evidence there is which can convince him but which might not be appropriate for the appeal court?

It would not be appropriate for me to go into details of evidence which might prejudice the result of the remainder of the report, which refers to Section 49 procedures against the police.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that once the doubts to which he referred had arisen, most people would have welcomed the decision to release this man from prison? Will he draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the case of Patrick Meehan, which is causing great concern in Scotland?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to that case and that he will approach it—as I do with all these cases—with a determination to see, as far as it is possible for any Secretary of State to see, that justice is done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of men serving lengthy prison sentences on the strength of dubious identification? I refer especially to the case of Patrick Murphy, who is serving an eight-year sentence after the original charge against him of murder was quashed, the original evidence being based on identification. Will my right hon. Friend look again, carefully, at that case?

I always look extremely carefully at all individual cases. However, as I am sure my hon. Friend and the House will appreciate, it is important that one should proceed in these matters with expedition and decisiveness when one is convinced that it is right to do so. One should not get into the position of not being able to do what is right in a particular case because to do so would mean having to act in the same manner in a number of cases which may be far less strong. It would be quite wrong if one case were prejudiced by other cases. However, I shall certainly consider any representations that my hon. Friend wishes to make.

As the right hon. Gentleman says that he is still considering referring the case to the Court of Appeal, does he agree that he will be putting himself in an extremely difficult position, in view of his decision today, if he refers the case and if the Court of Appeal does not allow the appeal? In those circumstances does he agree that a very difficult question is raised as to the circumstances in which the Prerogative should be used, rather than referring the matter to the Court of Appeal? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a more general statement not in relation to this case but on the criteria which he proposes to adopt in future?

I agree that there are considerable difficulties, but in my view I would have been in a less defensible position if, on the information before me, I had kept this man in jail for another six months or nine months.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider the view that is held by many of us who have no legal training—namely, that although we support his action this afternoon, there remains the anguish in our minds that, while George Davis has been freed, there are certain investigations which still have to be carried out? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that whatever those investigations are, they are carried out as speedily as possible so that George Davis will not have to live outside prison in a twilight world?

I hope that the investigations will be carried out as quickly as possible. I think that the investigations have been carried out expeditiously, but I am not sure that I accept what my hon. Friend says at the end of his question as being correct.

To take up the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), what is the point of referring the matter to the Court of Appeal if it is unable to consider the sort of evidence that the right hon. Gentleman has taken into consideration in coming to his decision?

I have not said that the matter should be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I shall consider whether it would be appropriate to take that course when we have the complete Moulder Report. There could then he the question whether the Court of Appeal might or might not think it right to expunge the charge. However, in these circumstances the Prerogative is a firmly established right. I am sure that I have used it properly in this case, bearing in mind the evidence and the precedents.

In the light of my right hon. Friend's apparent view that at the moment the Court of Appeal Criminal Division cannot do justice in these cases, does that not indicate an argument for enlarging the powers of the Court of Appeal so that it can make this kind of decision?

I think that my hon. and learned. Friend will appreciate that the Court of Criminal Appeal considered this matter but without the evidence that is now available to me. That is the essential reason for the use of the Prerogative in the circumstances of this case. I do not think it would necessarily be in any way a criticism of the Court of Criminal Appeal to say that I have decided to use the Prerogative. It would not be possible to put the matter before the court until the whole report was completed and processed and until the court was able to seize itself of it. That would at the very best involve a delay of many months, a delay which I would not feel to be justified.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his decision in this matter regarding identity parade evidence in any way establishes a precedent for his future judgment in such matters? If I referred to him another case of possible mistaken identity, would it receive his personal attention?

There will be no change in that respect. Any case that the hon. Gentleman referred would receive the closest attention. If he referred a case to me I should consider the matter and give him a reply myself. We propose to act upon the recommendations of the Devlin Report as soon as possible, and we shall consider what matters we can act upon without consultation. This does not mean—it would be wrong if it meant this—that any conviction upon identification will not be possible in future. That would be a very grave matter, and I am not propounding that for a moment.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of us agree that he has taken a wise course in these circumstances, where there is still so much, perhaps, to emerge about the identification procedures in the case and the Section 49 investigations? However, does my right hon. Friend envisage any situation in which Mr. George Davis will not have a further opportunity of clearing his name? It is that which concerns my hon. Friends on these Benches.

I have indicated how I think it possible that one might proceed to that stage. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have considered the matter carefully. I have in certain circumstances proposed a free pardon. In other circumstances I have proposed a remission of sentence, as have my predecessors. I am quite clear that in the present circumstances it is right that there should be an immediate remission of sentence and that I should not at present be justified in going any further.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agreed that he could have referred the case to the Court of Appeal and at the same time have granted Mr. Davis parole, rather than adopting the rather extraordinary procedure that has been followed?

The procedure is not extraordinary. For reasons that I have explained in answer to three or four questions, I believe it to be the right procedure in this case.

I appreciate that it is a bit of parliamentary gibberish by both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) to talk about a decision of this nature not prejudging the subsequent proceedings. Of course it will prejudge them. But will my right hon. Friend also look at the documents relating to Des Warren, who is still incarcerated? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Des Warren was never identified as being involved in any criminal act at any time?

I have looked at the documents in that case many times. I have considered many representations and I have answered many Questions from my hon. Friend. I do not regard the Des Warren case as being in any way a parallel with the Davis case.

My right hon. Friend has indicated that there has been some weakening of the evidence of identification as regards Davis. Does that mean that there has been some new evidence which has influenced his decision? In that event, would it not be right that Davis himself should have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division?

I think it is possible that he could consider such an application. I shall certainly consider whether the case should be so referred. As I have indicated, essentially a weakening of the evidence has occurred, upon the basis of which I have thought it right to take this immediate decision.

Bearing in mind the inevitable doubts that must result from any conviction now which is based largely on identification, and the current debate that is going on, will my right hon. Friend undertake to look at all the cases, some of which have been mentioned this afternoon, in which conviction has rested primarily on identification? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is now an issue that must be debated as a general principle and not merely with reference to specific cases?

We must certainly deal with the Devlin recommendations. I must also say quite firmly what I believe clearly to be the case—namely, that it is essential that a Home Secretary. when confronted with a position of this sort, should be able to act decisively in a particular case. That is of great value from the point of view of justice in this country. It would be quite wrong to believe that because of that everyone who has been convicted on the evidence of identification, whether it be good, strong or moderate, should necessarily be put in an entirely different position. We should not be serving the interests of justice if one could not act in a particular case without calling into question a number of safe convictions, the upholding of which, in my view, is essential for the preservation of the rule of law and the fight against crime.

In order to save the time of the House, I propose, unless objection is taken, to put together the three motions relating to the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Will the hon. Gentleman raise that matter after I have completed putting the Question?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you are proposing, with the leave of the House, to put the three motions together. I should like to point out that the first two motions are related to EEC Documents, whereas the third motion is not so related.

Order. I can save the time of the hon. Gentleman. The motions all relate to the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the first two relate to Commission Documents. If it is so desired, we shall take the motions separately.

Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.).

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Nationalised Industries; and for purposes connected therewith.

Since the war the growing power of the State and its remoteness from the citizen has led to the necessity for Parliament to appoint Parliamentary Commissioners. We began with a Parliamentary Commissioner for various Civil Service Departments and we moved on to other Commissioners. My Bill seeks to add another Parliamentary Commissioner, namely one for the nationalised industries.

Initially, Parliament was reluctant to introduce a Parliamentary Commissioner at all. Some hon. Members felt that this would take away the rights of individual Members of Parliament to raise matters and there was some reluctance to act on this score for a considerable period of time. However, eventually, in 1967 the House agreed to appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner. What was envisaged was an impartial, traditional type of office whose occupant would examine and investigate problems and report back to the hon. Member who raised the matter and also to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner. That procedure was established in 1967 and as a result some very successful work has been undertaken.

In 1973, following the reorganisation of the National Health Service, a Parliamentary Commissioner was introduced with responsibilities in respect of the NHS and his duties were to deal with maladministration within that service. I admit that that office is as yet in its infancy and that there are still problems. We face the problem that clinical decisions are separated from administrative decisions. But at least the system exists and is growing in success.

Following the reorganisation of local government in 1972, we set up the Local Government Commission on a regional basis. That is also in its infancy but it is achieving reasonable success.

However, there is one important area in which no Parliamentary Commissioner operates, and that is in relation to the nationalised industries. Members of Parliament in all parts of the House receive a considerable number of complaints about the nationalised industries, and they wish to air those complaints in the most effective way. The normal method of following up the complaints is to write to the chairman of the nationalised industry concerned and to put the problem before him. Sometimes these matters are dealt with expeditiously. In other cases hon. Members can contact consumer councils or advisory committees. Once again, matters can be handled expeditiously. But one always ends with the remainder of cases in which one does not receive a satisfactory answer.

Generally, consumer councils and advisory committees tend to be involved, in policy matters in the nationalised industries in terms of pricing or broader view than that contained within whatever it may be, and take a an individual case. Therefore, in that respect a Member of Parliament may find it difficult to extract a satisfactory answer.

The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries also examines the general running of the nationalised industries, but once again not in detail. The citizen, in my opinion, requires some direct machinery by means of which his parliamentary representative may raise matters relating to the nationalised industries.

Let me give a simple example in my own constituency. A number of houses were damaged as a result of floods and a month later the flooding happened yet again. The cause was traced to a blockage in a drain. The water authority officials said that it had nothing to do with them because the local authority was their agent. The local authority officials said it was nothing to do with them because it was a water authority drain. Therefore, the poor citizens were left in the middle. Nobody would take responsibility for the matter. Nobody would take the decision to examine the problem and say who was responsible. The people concerned could only succeed as a result of a difficult, laborious and expensive process—and even then they did not know whether they would succeed.

The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries investigated the subject of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and indeed took evidence from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I wish to quote from a memorandum submitted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to the Select Committee, in which he made three important points. The memorandum said:

"The Ombudsman is a supplement to other methods of handling complaints and righting wrongs; but not an alternative. He has considerable powers to investigate in depth."

I believe that that point is most important. The memorandum also said:

"He has a status of complete independence, assured by the method by which he is appointed and the terms on which he holds office."

In other words, the Commissioner acts as an independent investigator. I believe that the consumer councils are not strong enough for the task I have in mind and do not go as far as an independent Ombudsman would go. My Bill seeks to fill the gap.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 26, leave out '12½' and insert '10'.

With this it is proposed to take the following amendments: