asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further consultations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and her NATO allies on the development of an advanced early warning system.

I attended a meeting of the Defence Planning Committee on 11 th June, when Ministers agreed the lines on which the future work required was to be done. The results of these studies will be presented at the December 1976 ministerial meeting of the DPC.

What estimates have the Government made about the cost effectiveness of AWACS in comparison with the advanced early-warning Nimrod, and on what assumptions are those estimates based?

No such comparisons have yet been made. As far as the Boeing E3A is concerned, we are still trying to arrive at a contract definition, and this in the end, will determine to what extent the British Government or other NATO Governments will play a part. However, we have kept the Nimrod development alive and we have told our NATO partners that it is theirs for acquisition.

Is it not a fact that the AWACS development will cost a lot more than Nimrod? In addition, Nimrod would use engines manufactured by Rolls-Royce, which would give employment to people in this country.

There is no doubt about the latter point. As far as costs are concerned, these are dependent on how many E3As are ordered and to what extent they will have an enhanced capability. The numbers and sophistication of the system will determine the cost to the public.

How much have the Government spent on the E3A programme already? The House would like to know how far things have gone, if possible by the Summer Recess, if we are to have a recess.

We have made a small contribution to the contract definition study, because we want the Americans to make proposals before the end of the year and we want to encourage development. Apart from this, the Germans and ourselves have paid in $4 million to the end of 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the use of the British independent nuclear weapon capacity.

All British nuclear forces, including the Polaris submarines, are assigned to NATO, although they are under the ultimate control of the Prime Minister and could not be used without his consent. If NATO were to collapse we would have to take our own decisions, but while it exists our forces remain committed to the Alliance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unthinkable for this nation to use this weapon as a first strike and quite futile to use it subsequently? In what circumstances, therefore, does he envisage its being used?

It could be used subsequently if necessary. The Polaris has a second strike capability, and we have that second strike capability while we have Polaris. Because we have it, this country will not be subjected to nuclear blackmail. We hope that it will deter, but if the deterrent did not succeed we would have the right and the capability for a retaliatory strike.

Can the Secretary of State indicate how long he expects Polaris and Poseidon to continue to be sited on the Clyde in view of the fact that their siting is near a major population centre?

Polaris will continue for many years yet. Even in a conventional war, and without a nuclear capability in Britain, this island, because of its support base and its importance to Western Europe, would still become a target.

Will my right hon. Friend categorically deny the allegation by the World Watch Institute last month that Britain is developing a new generation of mini-nuclear weapons which depend on gamma radiation rather than explosive force?

I have told my hon. Friend many times that we are not embarking on a new generation of strategic nuclear missiles. I will look at the report he has mentioned, but I guess that it is sheer Press speculation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present strength of the combat units of the Army; what were the equivalent figures on the same date in each of the last two years; and to what extent the Army is at present below establishment.

It is not our practice to provide information on strengths of combat units.

In view of the growing strength of the armed forces of the Warsaw Pact countries, is the Minister satisfied with the strength of our own armed forces? Is he satisfied that the contribution we make to NATO is commensurate with the threat facing the United Kingdom?

Yes.

Would not the establishment and the morale of the Army be improved if more consideration were given to the relatives of soldiers? What is the up-to-date position relating to one of my constituents, Private Ogilvie, who was murdered in Germany about six weeks ago? His body has not yet been brought back to his mother for burial.

He should have been a mercenary.

My hon. Friend knows, as a result of speaking to me almost daily for some weeks and the correspondence we have had, that I have the deepest feeling for the family of this young lad who was murdered in Germany. I am quite sure that his family and everyone else would wish to see the perpetrators of this crime brought to justice. That is why the body is being held in Germany.

Why did the Government think it right to reduce our contribution to SACEUR strategic reserve by cutting the size of the United Kingdom mobile force? Will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends from hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side whose main concern seems to be to reduce the Army and the other Services to the level of a ceremonial sham?

The reduction in the SACEUR strategic reserve was a matter of contention on the last occasion I was at this Box. I put it right in correspondence with the hon. Member for Woking. As previously announced, our contribution has been reduced, but we still provide a very valuable contribution to the SACEUR strategic reserve.

Many of us have noticed the expensive and lengthy television advertisements for the Armed Forces. Are they beamed at the unemployed? Does my hon. Friend agree that many young people joining the Services would be better off in trade unions, and will he consider the establishment of trade unions in the Armed Forces?

The question of trade unions in the Armed Forces was fully covered in the last defence debate by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force. There is no question of the advertisements being beamed at the unemployed. More than ever, we are seeking the best-quality applicants for the Army.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what purpose is served by the Suffield training grounds in Canada; how many men visit Suffield for training purposes each year; and what is the cost to Her Majesty's Government.

Suffield is used to train mechanised Army battle groups for their NATO rôle and is the only training area in which they can carry out live firing in the course of tactical manoeuvres. Each year, seven battle groups or about 5,000 men train there. Annual running costs to the Ministry of Defence are about £4 million at present.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the cost of this training is worth while? As the training of NATO troops is a joint affair, what facilities have been offered to other NATO countries to train with British troops in this area?

I am wholly satisfied that Suffield provides the kind of training which is necessary and which we could not obtain elsewhere. The money spent in this area is extremely well spent. This is a British Army training area, but we hope that Canadian units will take part in exercises for the first time later this year.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the site provides a unique opportunity for the training of large formations? Is there any possi- bility of the lease being extended when it expires?

The lease runs until 1981. We should have to negotiate for an extension at that time. Suffield is an area of 750 square miles in which manoeuvring and live firing can take place without restriction. It is a unique and superb training area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply is not very convincing? Will he recognise that his Department should not wait until the lease runs out in 1981 but should be engaging in meaningful discussions with the Canadian Government for the continuing use of Suffield?

My hon. Friend is more than begging the question. Clearly, we do not intend to sit on our haunches until 1981 before actively considering the future.

As the number of posts abroad for British Service men continues to diminish, will the Minister do all he can to get new training areas in other Commonwealth countries for British soldiers?

That is another question, but while we have Suffield we do not need to worry too much about facilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the criteria for determining the countries to which Great Britain is prepared to sell arms.

Questions about Government policy on the criteria for determining the countries to which Great Britain is prepared to sell arms are really for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to answer. But it is Government policy to consider sales of equipment to any country, subject to the relevant political, military, security and financial criteria and our obligations to our allies.

Is there not a strong case for refusing to sell arms to both sides in a potential conflict—for instance, Israel and her Arab neighbours—and for refusing to sell arms to exceptionally repressive regimes such as those of Iran, Indonesia and Brazil? Is there not also a strong case for revising the criteria, especially as all the countries that I have mentioned were invited to participate in the recent defence sales exhibition?

This is more a question for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. As far as the Middle East is concerned, we always examine arms requests to make sure that they will not endanger a just and lasting peace in that area. Iran is a member of CENTO and an ally and is entitled to make requests for arms.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that those who engage in the horrible traffic of arms used to be castigated by the Labour Party as merchants of death, yet the Labour Government now seem to be proud that they are one of the main salesmen of arms in the world, selling to both sides in disputes and to the poorest countries in the world? Is he not ashamed that while the Government are refusing aid to these poor countries they are increasing their capacity to kill?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that we are one of the leading arms salesmen. We are far behind America and Russia and it is a matter for argument whether we or the French are a very poor third. The hon. Gentleman and the House should recognise that we take a moral stance on a much higher plane than any other country with the capacity to sell arms and that this has damaged our relations with many nations.

Would my right hon. Friend consider following the moral stance and example of Germany, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and many other countries which refuses to sell arms to any country involved in or likely to become involved in a war?

My hon. Friend is quite wrong. Germany sells arms abroad and is reconsidering its policy about selling more. Japan does not have the capacity to do so.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as Soviet influence moves progressively, with the sale of arms, into Angola, Mozambique, Somalia and some other African countries, it is important that we should do everything we can, on reasonable commercial terms, to ensure that countries such as Kenya, Zaire, Zambia and South Africa receive adequate supplies of military equipment?

Apart from South Africa, these countries occasionally make requests and, depending on the criteria, they all receive the same consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the recruiting methods used by the Armed Forces.

On the whole, yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on a recent visit to a school fete, along with my wife and young family, I was confronted with an armoured car and other military equipment and personnel encouraging young people to play a game called "Shoot to Kill"? Will he take steps to stop this glamorisation of violence, which seems to be aimed at recruiting young people of an impressionable age into the Armed Forces from areas of high unemployment?

If my hon. Friend will be kind enough to send me details of the case to which he refers, I shall look into it. I can assure him that it is not the Department's practice to go to schools trying to persuade young people to join the Armed Forces against their will. The recruiting teams and advisers who visit institutions such as schools are most careful to present a balanced picture of life in the Armed Forces and to point out to young people that it is an honourable and exciting career that they could enter if the so wished.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the immorality is more likely to be in the mind of the original questioner?

I have great confidence in and comradeship towards my hon. Friend. I do not share the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the results of changing values of sterling on estimated defence expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish an estimate of the increase in Great Britain's overseas defence commitments on the basis of the present sterling exchange rate as compared with 12 months ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an estimate of the increased cost of Great Britain's defence commitments overseas on the basis of the present sterling exchange rate as against 12 months ago.

The Estimates for defence spending overseas for 1976–77 are contained in Table 5 of Annex A to this year's Defence White Paper. These figures were based on exchange rates ruling in autumn 1975, the conventional price base for Estimates. The main cost arises in Germany and the average exchange rate of the £ sterling against the deutschemark in July 1975 was not significantly different from that used in the Estimates. The depreciation of the £ sterling against the deutschemark since the Estimates were prepared has been about 13 per cent. The actual cost of our commitments will depend on movements in exchange rates throughout the whole of the financial year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. What progress is being made in persuading the West Germans to make a greater contribution to the cost of keeping our forces in Germany?

My hon. Friend will notice that there is a specific Question later on the Order Paper on the Anglo-German offset agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a contradiction in the Government's economic strategy, directed as it is towards resolving the problems facing the British economy? We are concerned with the gold reserve and balance of payments, yet we continue with countries like Germany, which have a tremendous economic advantage over this country, with this level of expenditure.

If my hon. Friend was referring to Germany's present economic circumstances compared with ours, and meaning that it should make a greater financial contribution to the next Anglo-German offset agreement, I agree with him.

Does not the main answer suggest that there is a good case for exporting more arms and military equipment and using the Armed Forces to help us to do so, which would enable us to pay the costs of our own vital defence services overseas?

No, I should not go so far as to use the Armed Forces purposely to start selling arms abroad.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had spent 50 per cent. less over the past decade on our overseas commitment we should have saved about £2,000 million in foreign currency, which could now have been used to buttress sterling, and we should not be faced with threats from international bankers to cut public expenditure? Do I understand my right hon. Friend aright when he says that the cost of keeping British troops in Western Germany will now rise to about £450 million a year?

That is too great a supposition to allow me to follow down that path with my hon. Friend. We promised in the 1974 General Elections that we should carry out our commitment to the electorate—namely, to start withdrawing our forces from abroad. We have already completed the withdrawals from Gan, Mauritius and Singapore. We are helping to better the economic circumstances of the nation by cutting out many of our overseas commitments and concentrating upon our NATO rôle.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is now his policy that British defence forces should be maintained and not reduced except in the context of an agreement on mutual and balanced force reductions with the Eastern bloc.

As stated in the 1975 Statement on the Defence Estimates and reiterated since, we do not envisage any reductions in the central region in advance of an MBFR agreement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the words of my Question are a direct quotation from the latest communiqué of the ministerial meeting of the NATO Defence Planning Committee? Presumably Her Majesty's Government committed themselves to them. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that they apply not only to forces on the ground on the Continent but to any reinforcements?

They apply especially to the 65,000 who are stationed in the central region—namely, 55,000 in the Army and the Tactical Air Force.

Has my right hon. Friend read the speech made by Lord Goronwy-Roberts when addressing the seven hundred and eighth plenary session of the Disarmament Talks in Geneva, which have been proceeding since 9th September 1959? If he has read that speech, does he support the part of it that suggests that the British Government are now ready to co-operate with the Soviet Union in sending experts to Geneva to work out the best methods of further disarmament and the reducing of defence expenditure of all 31 countries involved in the talks on arms?

I have not read the speech, but I should be interested to participate in world-wide conferences on multilateral disarmament. Surely it comes ill from those who believe that the Soviet Union is ready to do that when it has been established that it has been spending between 11 per cent. and 12 per cent. of its gross national product on defence expenditure in the past five years.

In view of the considerable and dangerous cuts that the Government have already made in defence expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when the Government announce their further cuts in public expenditure later this month, or later this year, defence will be excluded from them?

I do not think I can give the House the categoric assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. No doubt some claims will be made upon the defence budget.

Resist them.

What they may be I know not yet. However, I do know, and the right hon. Gentleman will know, that, whether we are battle weary or war shocked, we have had some experience and we shall be ready for the Chancellor's call.

Should not my right hon. Friend read Lord Goronwy-Roberts' speeches?

Only to catch up with the deliberations of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) in his supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence sales exhibition held at Aldershot.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on 29th June 1976.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this side of the House condemns the sale of arms by Russia, America and other countries, especially in a world in which two-thirds of the people go hungry every night? Does he accept that the display at Aldershot was an immoral encouragement of the sale of arms? Does he accept that in the longer term it will mean a loss of jobs, because our industrial capability will be overtaken by countries such as Japan which refuse to join in this death-sales race and instead concentrates on peaceful purposes? Will my right hon. Friend now reject the present concept as an affront to the trade union and labour movement and the whole of humanity?

I am ready to agree with my hon. Friend that the arms trade is not a happy business. However, if we believe, as successive Governments have done, that it is right to sell arms to our friends in different parts of the world, it would surely be hypocrisy not to have the sort of exhibition lately held at Aldershot. As regards the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not believe he believes that if we were to stop all defence sales now others would follow, or that it would not result in large unemployment at a time when we can least manage it.

How many jobs would be lost if we cut out arms sales?

It is extremely difficult to say, but, obviously, many thousands.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the list of nation States represented at the Army equipment exhibition at Aldershot shows that the vast majority of potential customers for British armaments are nation States whose systems of Government are hideously undemocratic? Does not that make a mockery of the United Kingdom's international stance as a defender of freedom and individual liberty?

My hon. Friend raises the difficult question of how many systems of government in the world we would all wholly approve of. That is not a basis for international relations. On that basis we would have diplomatic relations with virtually no one outside Western Europe and North America. This is a commonsense business to which we must have a robust approach. There were no representatives from South Africa or Chile at the exhibition and, apparently, most people thought that the exhibition was organised in a sober and proper way.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to attend a NATO ministerial meeting.

I expect to meet Dr. Luns at the NATO autumn ministerial meetings. The dates have not yet been fixed.

In view of the warnings of the Secretary-General and British defence advisers that the balance of power is tilting dangerously in favour of the Warsaw Pact Powers, will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the Secretary-General that the British Government are totally opposed to the pro- posals of the Tribune Group for further cuts in defence expenditure, which would be bound to endanger the freedom of the British people?

If I accepted the latest proposal of cuts of £1,000 million in addition to the cuts which have already been made, at best that would be a policy of neutrality and at worst it would be surrender.

Will my right hon. Friend tell Dr. Luns that we are spending more on defence and less on domestic investment other than any other Western European nation? As a nation, we must get our priorities right. We cannot afford the burden of our present defence expenditure. Unlike the Opposition, who are demanding increases, if we are to have public expenditure cuts, should not the Government cut defence expenditure?

My hon. Friend referred to industrial investment. During the past three years the defence budget has played its part, and it will play its part during the next few years, in allowing the reallocation of resources. From the time when we took office to the year 1979–80, we shall have cut back projected expenditure by £2,300 million involving real, not "phoney", cuts.

In view of the further evidence published by the Institute for the Study of Conflict about the world-wide growth of Russian naval power, will the Government, with other members of NATO, take an initiative towards organising a more urgent and realistic response to ensure that Western interests worldwide are properly safeguarded?

I have told the House previously—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not aware of this—that NATO commissioned a study two years ago by the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic of a contingency plan ready to operate beyond NATO's borders in time of war, should that be necessary.

How does my right hon. Friend justify his statement that there is a case for saying that defence should be based on a figure per head of the population? On that basis, what would be the defence expenditure of China and India in relation to that of Britain?

I am not aware that China and India are menacing either the United Kingdom or the Western European Alliance.

When the Secretary of State meets Dr. Luns will he assure him that, while the anti-West, anti-NATO and anti-democratic views of the Tribune Group are obviously widely shared in the Parliamentary Labour Party, they are repudiated by the vast majority of people in this country?

When the Parliamentary Labour Party as a whole is fully conversant with the effect of a £1,000 million cut on jobs in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries and industrial investment, I doubt whether it will follow that line.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what reductions in the central staffs employed by his Department in London he anticipates by 1st January 1979.

We aim to achieve reductions in keeping with the changed needs of the Services. I cannot quantify these at the moment but they will make a useful contribution to the overall reductions of 40,000 which we shall be making by 1st April 1979.

Is it true that the Ministry of Defence is currently investigating the possibility of a 10 per cent. cut in its London staff? Will that reduction be genuine, or will it be a matter of abolishing posts but allowing the occupants to stay on and serve out their time? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the chairborne generals and bureaucrats will bear a higher proportion of any reductions than will the fighting forces?

In general, I can probably give my hon. Friend the assurances for which he asks. Certainly the savings which we make will be in the headquarters staff, although I want to make absolutely clear that there are many able and dedicated people there to whom we should pay tribute for the work they have done over many years. The cuts will be real, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence will set an example to the whole of Whitehall.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the circumstances surrounding Fleet Bank House, Salisbury Square, which has recently been occupied by his Department? Is he aware that, according to a parliamentary answer given by a Minister from the Department of the Environment and other information reaching me, the building remained unoccupied for more than a year after rent started to be paid, during which period over £1 million was paid in rent and £1·8 million in modification costs? If cuts are contemplated in staff, why it is necessary to occupy that building. Has there not been a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money?

The story is an entirely new one to me, but I shall certainly look into it. On the face of what the hon. Gentleman says, there appears to be a problem of neglect.

What would be the effect on headquarters staff of a separate Scottish army, navy and air force? How far advanced is the projected White Paper on separate Scottish forces?

I have always thought the idea of separate Scottish forces such a dangerous nonsense that I am afraid I have not gone into the detailed examination which would enable me effectively to reply to my hon. Friend.

What about the White Paper?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of continuing to station United Kingdom forces in Cyprus other than those on United Nations duty.

The budgetary cost of our forces in Cyprus is estimated to be £36 million in 1976–77.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House the foreign exchange costs? In the light of an earlier reply given by the Secretary of State about the question of withdrawal of troops, will my hon. Friend say what proposals or plans the Government have in mind for the withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from Cyprus?

The foreign exchange costs at present run at about £28 million. We have no plans for the withdrawal of British forces from the Sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations force is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and other Ministers, who would have to make an assessment before I could give my hon. Friend an effective reply.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any sudden withdrawal of British forces from the Sovereign base areas would be a breach of an undertaking and calculated to start a terrible bloodbath between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots?

It would not be helpful for me to speculate on a matter which is not even under consideration by the Government. There are no plans for the withdrawal of British forces from the Sovereign base areas in Cyprus.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no question under treaty of the British Government giving up the sovereign base areas in Cyprus unless we first hand them over to the legitimate Government of the Republic of Cyprus?

I can hardly foresee any circumstances in which, if the British Government were contemplating a withdrawal from Cyprus, they would wish to hand over the sovereign base areas to any authority other than the Government of the Republic of Cyprus; but all these matters are for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, not for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in discussions with the United States of America with a view to the purchase of advanced versions of the Harrier for the United States Marine Corps.

The United States Navy is considering a programme for development of an improved Harrier—AV8B—for service with the United States Marine Corps. An announcement by the United States authorities on whether they have decided to proceed with the first stage of their programme is expected shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that shop stewards' committees throughout the country will welcome his reply? The progress in the sales and licensing of this unique piece of British technology is to be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend say how many people are employed on the project?

I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. An order of that kind would be very important in terms of licensed firms' production work and, therefore, of jobs. I cannot put a figure on jobs but I expect that it will involve several thousand.

What progress has been made on sales of aircraft to China and the Sea Harrier to Iran?

We are prepared to sell aircraft where they are required within the rules which the Government set down to determine defence sales. We are alert to all possibilities and will consider them all, including those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Shall we have the right Ito manufacture and sell in this country for export the versions of the Harrier which may be developed in future with the United States, or have we made over to the United States the whole of the rights in exports of that technology?

I cannot give an offhand answer on all the details of the contract. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman may take it that, whereas we are hopefully selling this important technology to the United States at considerable benefit to ourselves, at the same time we shall ensure that the residual advantage of the aircraft remains with the United Kingdom.

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that in negotiating these arrangements he will bear in mind that, despite the agreement between the Government and the United States, there has been a considerable lack of reciprocity?

I take my hon. Friend's point about reciprocity. There is now a two-way street, and we hope that a purchase of this kind will be part of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in conjunction with the German Government towards an agreed formula for the next generation of main battle tank.

We are making satisfactory progress in the studies that we are currently undertaking with the Federal Republic of Germany in order to define a common tank for the late 1980s.

Will my hon. Friend go so far as to accept that it would make common sense for the allies in Western defence to have a similar concept of this type of machine or weapon? Can he forecast the numbers that might be made, because it could mean a lift in jobs for people in the engineering industry?

The current phase of the studies will take about another year and, therefore, we are not yet at the stage at which we can talk about numbers. It is generally acknowledged that towards the end of this century many countries will be renewing their tank fleets, and we therefore have a great opportunity of selling new tanks.

In view of the known differences between the British and the German Governments about the configuration of the proposed tanks, will my hon. Friend assure the House that if agreement is not reached Britain will be able to go ahead with its own tank? Will that tank include the armour that we have invented?

Assuming that the discussions come to nothing, we would have the ability to produce our own tank, and clearly we would have the ability to produce the new armour.

Will our tank be ready in time to supply the Canadian Army, which is seeking to re-equip its forces over the next two years?

That is another question. If the timescale is two years, I doubt whether we would be in that position.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the concept of the tank as a battle weapon is dubious because it is vulnerable to weapon systems which it cannot reach? Will he give an assurance that the Department is rigorously examining the concept of the main battle tank as a weapon system?

I do not believe that my hon. Friend has learned the lessons of the Yom Kippur war, otherwise he would realise that the vast majority of tanks that were killed were killed by tanks in the same way as the vast majority of aircraft killed were killed by aircraft.

Does the Minister think that our chances of getting agreement with the German Government on this matter, or getting a working agreement to offset costs, are increased by the amount of unilateralism coming from below the Gangway on his side of the House?

In any discussions with us, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany realise that they are discussing whatever issue it may be with the Government of this country.

asked the Prime Minister when next he intends to meet the leaders of the CBI; and if he will make a statement.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is in Brussels attending a meeting of the European Council, and in his absence I have been asked to reply.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best explanation for the CBI's reluctance to discuss with the NEDC the whole question of British industrial management is that it is conscious of the quality of British industrial management? Does he agree that it is possibly management's quality which is the most significant factor in Britain's poor industrial performance? Does he agree that higher management is a poor mix of brilliance and mediocrity and that there is no known system for talent-spotting in industry? Will he recommend to the Prime Minister the setting up of a management advisory council so that the Government at least can equip itself with some talent to occupy the vacant jobs?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that improvement in management is obviously one of the things that is desirable and highly necessary for a general improvement in British industry. From my own knowledge of the discussions in the NEDC, I can assure him that management's performance has often figured as a topic. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's proposal is the right one, but I shall suggest it to my right hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to raise with the CBI the question of the low level of investment in industry? Is he aware that according to Government figures it has dropped from 13 per cent. in 1960 to 2 per cent. today? Does he agree that the modest change in the Price Code is not enough?

Those matters are constantly discussed by the NEDC and the CBI. Changes in the Price Code followed full discussions with the CBI.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an urgent need for the exemplary co-operation between the Government and the trade unions to be buttressed by a real commitment by management to a tripartite attack on our industrial problems? Does he agree that this could be best met by managements being willing to increase investment in manufacturing industry in Britain?

All hon. Members on this side of the House, and probably many on the other side, will probably agree with my hon. Friend. Lord Watkinson gave a commitment on behalf of the CBI which was welcomed by the Government. We hope that that can be carried further in the future.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the CBI continues to speak effectively on behalf of the many smaller firms in Britain? Is it not time that the whole structure of these discussions between the Prime Minister and the NEDC were reformed so that the Prime Minister and the Government could get a better idea of what the smaller firms were thinking about investment, employment and profitability?

I doubt whether it is my business to say how representative the CBI is of British industry generally. Small firms, as well as the CBI, have the opportunity of putting their views to the Government.

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

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the German National Tourist Board has recently been allocated more resources for the attraction of foreign visitors, in contradistinction to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, who constantly seem to be attacking service industries in general and tourism in particular, thus causing, for instance, the Chairman of the English Tourist Board to claim that the development land tax will hamper the development of tourism throughout the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Declare your interest."] Would the right hon. Gentleman—

Order. From both sides we have had long questions, and long questions in Prime Minister's Question Time are selfish questions. Mr. Adley, to finish.

Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the Prime Minister to discuss this matter personally with Herr Schmidt the next time they meet?

I do not know whether it is necessary to have such discussions and I do not know the exact comparison between the figures spent on tourism in both countries. I should think that the figures also show—this is a guess, but I imagine that it is correct—that many more visitors come to this country than go to West Germany.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the previous time that the Prime Minister went to Germany he went to the Ubersee Club in Hamburg, where he gave an excellent address on the basis of the future of the Community, in which he suggested that the nations of the Community should co-operate, without one country imposing its will on the other? The Prime Minister said that it was his personal view, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said that he agreed. Is it not time that the Government now came to that view themselves?

The Prime Minister will be returning from Brussels tomorrow and will be making a statement to the House on the discussions that he has had there. My right hon. Friend is of age and he can speak for himself.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to confer with Herr Schmidt about the absolute shambles of the position into which Germany and Britain got at the recent UNCTAD conference? No one would expect the British Government to accept proposals with which they disagree, but the inflexibility and lack of constructiveness of the British and German positions harmed the Community, the developing world and, most important, this country.

I know that there were criticisms of what occurred at the UNCTAD conference, but it has also been said by several of my hon. Friends who took a special interest in the matter—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)—that it was the Prime Minister's intervention which assisted in the last days of that conference, and that that showed the British Government's interest in the matter.

With regard to tourism, is the deputy Prime Minister aware that there are nevertheless many instances right now of exploitation and rackets, particularly as outlined in the London Evening News this week? Will he, in his other capacity, set up a Select Committee to examine tourism and perhaps probe some of the allegations made?

I am not sure whether Select Committees are always the best bodies to examine these matters, but I shall seriously consider what my hon. Friend has said.

When the Prime Minister next visits Germany, officially or unofficially, will the right hon. Gentleman ask him to make efforts to discover the connection between the success of the German economy and the German electoral system, which has so much in common with the recent suggestion of the Hansard Society?

I do not know whether anyone would seriously suggest that the German economic position is due to the electoral system there. One of the matters which the Prime Minister discussed with the German Chancellor when he was there, and which is certainly a subject that I would have thought was connected with industrial performance, was the whole question of industrial democracy. They had very interesting exchanges on that matter and I believe that those exchanges can help this country to progress further and more speedily in that direction.

asked the Prime Minister when he last made a ministerial broadcast.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a good alteration to ministerial broadcasts would be for the proceedings of the House to be broadcast? In discussions with the Prime Minister, will he arrange to bring forward the debate in which the House is to make final arrangements for our proceedings to be broadcast?

I entirely agree. The House has voted for the broadcasting of its proceedings and I should like it to happen as speedily as possible. I hope that we shall have a resolution on the subject before the recess. There are some difficulties, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; it would be of great advantage to the House as a whole if that could happen.

If such statements are to be made in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that before the recess a statement will be made showing exactly what line the Government intend to take about public spending? Will they take the view apparently held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that such cuts have to be made, or will they take the view apparently held by the Secretary of State for Energy and the Home Policy Committee of the Labour Party, that any such cuts would be disastrous to the economy?

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be jumping to too many conclusions based on a cursory reading of the newspapers over the last few days. I hope that he will await the statement which the Prime Minister has suggested will be made—we hope before the recess. I think that the best course is to wait for that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a statement will be made before the recess?

The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister has already said on this subject.

When the Prime Minister makes a ministerial broadcast will he be able to give a copper-bottomed guarantee that the forthcoming round of public expenditure cuts will mean no cutback in conventional defence at Kinloss, Rosyth or anywhere else in Scotland?

I do not believe that that is the form which a broadcast by the Prime Minister should take and I do not believe that the matter can be dealt with by way of answers to questions of that nature.

Will my right hon. Friend make a ministerial broadcast on the current hideous rumours about the fate of Mrs. Dora Bloch? If it transpires that it is correct that she has been murdered in cold blood, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the views of her sons, first, that President Amin is a most dangerous savage and, second, that no international aircraft traveller is safe while hijackers have allies like him?

I have seen the report in the evening papers but we have no confirmation of it. It is at the moment a report in a Kenyan paper. But I should also add to the statement made by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, yesterday. Since he made that statement, there have been very worrying further developments. The Second Secretary in our High Commission in Kampala was expelled on President Amin's orders late last night and left for Nairobi this morning. The Ugandan authorities have also told our High Commission of President Amin's instructions that two members of the British community will be expelled today and that further action will be taken after the Security Council meeting.

On a point of order—

Order. If the hon. Member will raise his point of order after Question Time, I shall be able to call Question No. Q4.

I apologise if the House thinks that my statement was rather lengthy—

It should have been made later.

I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and the interest of the rest of the House, but I thought that since my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) had raised the matter, and since it is a matter of great and natural public interest, it was right to give the House the latest information.

asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is wholly unsatisfactory? Why is it that he and his colleagues imagine that they know how to manage British industry, when it is abundantly clear that neither they nor he can maintain even the Government's own business with any degree of competence?

I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman said that the previous reply was wholly unsatisfactory it meant only that he could not recall what it was. But what the Prime Minister said on that occasion was

"The House may assume that I do not intend to make any further ministerial changes unless and until I make a statement to the contrary."—[Official Report, 8th July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 622.]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that although some of us are not happy with some of the Chancellor's statements at this moment we are not necessarily in favour of his dismissal? Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us would be bitterly opposed to any cuts in public expenditure which could lead to further unemployment? Will he bear in mind that many years ago he moved the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on the question of the IMF letter of intent? Will he tell the House that the Government are not pursuing policies of a similar kind at this moment?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is of paramount importance in the present situation to do our very best to prevent any rise in unemployment and to bring down a level which is already much too high. That is one of the prime considerations which the Government are taking into account. As for a comparison of events with 1966, I do not always believe that historical parallels are instructive. In any case there has not been an approach to the IMF on the basis that occurred in 1967.

Does the Lord President accept that excessive Government expenditure is one of the causes of unemployment? Will he advise the Prime Minister, when he returns from his meeting in Europe, that the one step he should take to reduce unemployment is to dismiss the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's simplistic doctrine. I believe that there are occasions, as the Prime Minister underlined in the recent censure debate, when public expenditure can fortify employment. That must be taken into account also.

Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention also be drawn to the 40 down-to-earth Written Questions which have been tabled on the project of coverting the Royal High School into a Scottish Assembly? How can we, on the one hand, deprive local authorities of £47 million on their cherished projects in Scotland and, on the other hand, envisage this colossal expenditure on Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff?

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) takes an extremely idiosyncratic view on this subject. He is entitled to express his views, but I have to make clear to him that his view is certainly not shared by the great majority of Members on this side of the House. Furthermore, it is not borne out by commitments in the Labour Party manifesto.

rose—

Order. I am about to make a Privilege ruling, but I am prepared to take first points of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Question No. Q3 the Lord President of the Council was asked when the Prime Minister had last made a ministerial broadcast. However, the Lord President answered that Question by making a three-minute speech, presumably seeking to save time which should have been devoted to making a statement after Question Time. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman used Prime Minister's Question Time for that purpose. I suggest that that procedure is out of order and should not have occurred, and I hope that it will not recur.

I am doing my best to get shorter questions and shorter answers, an aim which I believe is in the best interests of the House. I do not recall that the reply by the Lord President of the Council took three minutes.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the procedure of the House for the Lord President to read out a prepared statement in answer to Question No. Q3, which had nothing to do with Mrs. Bloch? Should not the Lord President instead have undertaken to make a statement on that matter separately?

On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter on which I should like your ruling. Is it not an abuse of the procedures of the House for the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on Question No. Q2 to the Prime Minister to ask for more public expenditure on the tourist industry, in contrast to the view taken by the majority of his party, who seek to cut public expenditure, and for the hon. Gentleman not to disclose—I know that it is not a requirement, but I believe that it should be—the fact that he has a financial interest as the European Marketing Director of Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an hon. Member in this House who takes part in defence debates, who asks questions on such matters and who is a director of a highly profitable armaments firm. Is it not part of the procedure and practice of this House that an interest should be declared? Therefore, although I do not wish to name the hon. Member concerned because I have not given him notice, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will tell the House what kind of conduct you expect in relation to the declaration of such interests in future?

Before I hear any other points of order, let me deal with the last two. The House should know that there is no requirement at Question Time for hon. Members to declare interests. That is part of the practice of the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I did not hear your ruling to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King). Is it, or is it not, an abuse of Prime Minister's Question Time for a Minister to make an important statement in the course of it rather than at the end of it?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear my ruling. I said that I deplore long questions and long answers. Clearly I think that the House felt that the Minister had taken the opportunity by this Question to make an important statement both to this House and to the country. However I think that, in general, it is preferable that statements are made after Questions.