asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further investment is earmarked for coal refineries that will make transport fuels and chemical feed-stocks, in view of their importance to the plastics and other industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the progress being made with coal liquefaction; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest figures available for the energy involved in producing one gallon of petrol from the liquefaction of coal; what is the approximate cost of such a gallon; and if he will take steps to speed up and expand the programme for the abstraction of oil from coal.

Design studies are nearing completion for a pilot plant facility to test the NCB's liquid solvent extraction and supercritical gas extraction processes at the 25 tonne per day scale.

The Government, with the NCB and BP, are considering what level of support can be given to the construction and operation of the facility, which, on latest estimates, would cost about £55 million. I am satisfied that the NCB processes are being developed at a sensible rate. Based on NCB technology, about 20 pounds of coal would be required to make one gallon of petrol, which would cost an estimated 25 per cent. more at the refinery than petrol from natural crude oil.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that other countries are spending vastly more on this development than Britain? West Germany, for example, is spending £3,000 million on this sort of refinery. In the United States, millions of pounds are being spent and even Royal Dutch Shell is producing a plant to extract gas in Holland costing £70 million. Can the Minister assure the House that the amount of money being invested in Britain is enough to guarantee the supply of energy from these sources in future years? Or will it be the case that we have invested too little too late?

We are continuing exactly the programmes of the previous Administration. The programmes of the previous Administration, like those of this Government, rightly took into account the very different natural circumstances within which we live. We cannot, happily, ignore our reserves of North Sea oil, which put the timing, as opposed to the importance, of our liquefaction processes into a different position.

In supporting my hon. Friend, may I ask whether the Minister is aware how far behind other countries this country is falling in this important matter? As we have so much coal, and the expertise—which is extremely important—and as the need is so pressing, will the hon. Gentleman increase the resources available for this important development?

I reject the suggestion that we are getting far behind. An important tripartite meeting involving the working party took place on this matter. We have just received the preliminary design studies for which we have been waiting. We are considering them urgently. No delay has taken place. The most interesting and important outcome of the design studies is that, on current projections, for an identical product spectrum, the United Kingdom processes seem to have a cost and efficiency advantage compared with leading United States processes. Contrary to the suggestion that we are far behind, our intelligent, serious and exciting NCB work seems to show that we are potentially far ahead.

Will not the Minister accept that the Government should take more interest in these processes, like other countries? Is he aware that the Selby project could not have gone ahead if it had relied on private capital? Will he give an assurance to the House that Government finance will be available for these projects?

I am trying to work out the connection with the original question. I cannot imagine any project that the Government have examined that has not involved serious and continuing interest and commitment. We must, however, make the decisions, as the plan for research and development proposed, correctly, and at a time when all the facts are available. The rate of return on Selby shows that it is an exciting investment, whoever may be the potential investors.

The House will have listened with interest to the Minister's remarks. Not long ago, there was a great deal of scepticism about the question of oil from coal. The Government have made an announcement about the design studies. Is the Minister aware that, according to our information, these matters are about to go out to tender and that one tender has even been placed? Will he confirm or deny that? When will the Government make a firm financial commitment? They have made no financial commitment as such. It would help if the Minister let the country see the colour of the Government's money.

There is a whole series of points as opposed to questions there. As I made clear on Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill last Tuesday, that when the point of decision comes, the Government regard the area of coal liquefaction as quite separate from that of the overall limits that they have currently argued in strategy. I should have thought that that was a clear comment and a positive commitment. May we just get to the time when we have actually announced a decision, following the design studies? When that point comes, we can decide whether the Government should commit funds for such a project.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on progress towards encouraging energy conservation, with particular reference to petrol consumption during the last 12 months.

The downward trend in total energy consumption is continuing, the reduction in oil consumption being particularly marked. Against the general trend, demand for petrol has increased, but there are signs that the rate of increase may be falling.

Is my hon. Friend surprised and disappointed that there has been an increase in petrol consumption in the past year? He mentioned signs of a reversal of that trend. Can he amplify that?

I am disappointed, obviously, because one would like to see progress more quickly made, but we are in an area where short-term demand is relatively inelastic. Obviously, people cannot change their cars as soon as prices change. It is important to draw attention to provisional figures which will be published in this week's "Energy Trends", which show that, although petroleum consumption was down 15 per cent. in the first quarter, motor spirit consumption was up 6·8 per cent. However, the latter is declining so rapidly that in April it was down to 0·2 per cent. In the period from February to April inclusive it rose by only 2·9 per cent. Therefore, there are signs of improvement—although I have stressed on each occasion that this question has been answered that we should be looking at long-term patterns, not short-term ones.

Since the Minister now admits that there is no significant improvement in keeping down petrol consumption, will he do something to help the motorist? Is he aware that since this Government came to power, petrol prices have risen by 54 per cent. and BP profits by 87 per cent? When will he take some action to stop the profits of these oil companies, which, every time the pound goes up against the dollar, make even more cash out of the motorist?

Facts are always difficult for people to listen to, so, for the sake of the hon. Member, I will repeat that in April the decline in petrol consumption was 0·2 per cent. and that for that quarter one can see an improvement. I would also remind the hon. Gentleman of the comparison with the quarter January-March 1979—the worst winter in 20 years, when the tanker drivers' dispute took place. Success is being attained in this area and the position will not be improved by destroying profits, which are the basis of all long-term success.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress in harnessing the vast amounts of heat wasted from power stations? Could that harnessing for district heating not make a bigger contribution to energy conservation than any other process?

I am never satisfied, but I am conscious, as I said in a recent answer to my hon. Friend, that this is an important area where the Government have committed themselves to the next stage. Obviously, this is an area of great concern. We are not satisfied, not complacent, but pushing ahead with the programme that we announced.

Will the Minister make it clear that he does not approve of conservation by price, especially not if it involves the sort of profiteering that one can see on the M1 and other motorways? Does he believe that a price of £1·52 per gallon, even though sold by the litre, is attractive, desirable or commendable?

The view that one takes that price, long term, will be the key factor behind long-term energy conservation does not mean that one can or should make subjective judgments about individual garages in areas where they may or may not—I do not know—be charging the market price for their product.

Although realistic pricing policy is at the heart of this Government's conservation approach, is there not a case, in regard to petrol, for the introduction of mandatory miles-per-gallon standards as is done in the United States?

I am always loth to approach what I would call mandatory areas, as I believe in a society where people should make long-term decisions on their own. All information that can be presented to the motorist to help him with long-term conservation will be beneficial. We have recently published a checklist "Making the Most of Your Petrol", prepared with the help of the AA and the RAC, which will help in that regard, as well as additional information through the official fuel consumption tests for cars at the point of retail sale. Those will be a help.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department's forecasts of future demand for electricity correspond to those currently used by the electricity supply industry.

The most recent forecast of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales of the demand for electricity to 1986–87 implies lower demand growth than the longer-term trends published in "Energy Projections 1979", but falls within the range of cases my Department has examined.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that the effective margin of demand over supply depends critically on the age of the plant in the system? I declare an interest in the supplying industry. Does he accept that it would be of great help to that industry and to employment in it if a sensible plan of retirement of old plant were announced and adhered to?

The rate at which plant is replaced depends very much on the investment policies followed 30 or 40 years ago, as well as on the demand projections of two or three years ago. However, the CEGB has it in mind to retire some stations. Part of the argument for nuclear stations certainly depends upon more expensive older stations being replaced.

Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Energy has spent a considerable time exploring the mystery of the discrepancy between the Department's figures and those of the industry? Why, given the same assumptions, do rational people not reach the same conclusions?

The hon. Member, more than anybody else, should be aware that when one is trying to work out forecasts of the demand for electricity over 20 years, has to take into account the growth of the economy, the corresponding growth in demand for energy, following that the growth of demand for electricity, then the effect that the supply and price of gas and oil and competing fuels will have. It is not at all surprising that different people in those circumstances come up with very different answers. However, when my Department is considering the investment decisions of the CEGB, we satisfy ourselves that those investments will make an adequate return and are robust against a number of variations of the central forecasts.

May we have an assurance that there will be no further electricity price increases to industry and the householder over and above that which has already been announced, merely to cover the cost to the CEGB of the fall in economic demand and the recession which has led to a fall in demand for electricity?

Certainly there are no plans for further increases, but the right hon. Gentleman should be clear about the position. The reason for the recent electricity price increases was not to any significant extent falling demand, as reported in some papers. It was, in fact, rises in costs. Rises in oil prices since the beginning of 1979 of 120 to 170 per cent. and of coal by 50 per cent. are the main reaons for electricity price increases.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that small garages are not being unfairly refused supplies of petrol.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied that small garages are not being unfairly refused supplies of petrol.

Arrangements for supplies of petrol between wholesalers and retailers are generally a matter for the parties involved. I have reported to the House the assurances the oil companies have given on continuation of supplies to small garages, particularly those in rural areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable concern is expressed, especially in the rural areas, that the policies of the larger petrol suppliers are making it difficult for the small garages to continue with petrol retailing at all? What proposals has he to ensure continuity of availability of petrol to garages in villages?

We have been taking note of these developments, but I remind my hon. Friend that the assurances given by the companies have been honoured. Where supply has been discontinued, new companies have set up, and many of those who were deprived of their original supply have been able to make alternative arrangements.

Is the Minister aware that, whatever assurances he may have been given, the Esso petroleum company in particular has continued to cut down on supplies to rural areas with considerable effect in Northumberland and has threatened many of the remaining rural outlets with a surcharge on top of the present high rural petrol price?

I have discussed this matter with Esso, and others, and the assurances which they originally gave have been honoured. It is true that the price being charged for supplies to some smaller outlets is different but this is to be expected and the supply has been maintained. It is better that that continues rather than that the Government should institute a form of pricing which might lead to the closing down of smaller stations with low throughput.

Is the Minister aware of the problems in certain tourist areas such as Gwynedd where garages were running out of petrol by Saturday during May, the peak time for the trade? It is that trade which keeps them going for the rest of the year. They have run short because the companies have insisted on full tanker loads before they will deliver. Does not the Minister think that that is unsatisfactory?

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. We have received no reports of that kind this year. However, if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind and he cares to let me know about it, I shall certainly have it investigated.

Will my hon. Friend note that certain garages in the West Country that were operating with a gross profit per gallon of 11·77p 12 months ago are now operating with a gross profit of 5·7p and that that figure is likely to be reduced to 3p because of pressure from the major oil companies? Will my hon. Friend give the House two further assurances? First, will he have words with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs who, I believe, has been approached on this matter from the consumer point of view? Secondly, will he, once again, look at supplies to rural areas, where rural petrol stations are very much at risk from any pressure from the major oil companies?

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, this is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs. But I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading is considering whether the situation is such as to warrant the exercise of his powers under the Fair Trading Act or the new Competition Act. He is investigating whether there has been any significant qualitative changes in the market since the last report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1979.

Is the Minister aware—since the Government are supposed to be the party of the small business man—that his answer will not satisfy small business men? Is he further aware that 1,300 petrol stations, of a total of 1,800 which closed in the last year, were independent and that they closed because they were unable to get supplies? Why is it that Esso in America is prohibited from fixing the retail price of petrol and prohibited from withholding supplies while this Government allow it to do just that in Britain? When will the Minister take action in the interest of these small business men?

The hon. Gentleman is guilty of his usual fault of exaggeration. I assume that the figures that he quoted applied during the petrol shortage last year. We have no evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. There have been few cases where companies have not been able to obtain alternative supplies.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on safety checks carried out on North Sea oil rigs.

Might I apologise to the House for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not present for Question Time today? He is attending the meeting in Venice with the Prime Minister.

Annual surveys of selected areas of offshore installations are carried out every year with a major survey of all areas every five years. These surveys are made by certifying authorities, appointed under the Offshore Installations (Construction and Survey) Regulations 1974. The results of the most recent surveys of mobile installations were set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) on 3 April.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply but he must, obviously, be aware of the concern following the "Alexander Keilland" affair. Can my hon. Friend tell the House when the report of that accident will be completed, whether he will publish it and whether he is prepared to contemplate legislation, if necessary, to ensure that whatever safety recommendations are made will be properly adhered to?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the investigation into the "Alexander Keilland" disaster is being carried out by the Norwegian Government. They are keeping in close contact with us and when the report is made available to us the Government will certainly give it every consideration. We are determined that safety will continue to be a number one priority. We shall take the necessary steps to ensure that any recommendations in the report are put into effect.

Does the Minister recognise two extremely important points? The first is that there is likely to be new building of semi-submersibles and that it is important that we get the most up-to-date information about the Norwegian experience so that that information can be made available to possible United Kingdom builders? Secondly, will the Minister indicate, in terms of the Burgoyne report, what his response will be to the extreme concern expressed by divers in the United Kingdom who feel that some diving companies are using divers with insufficient expertise for North Sea conditions?

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance in answer to his first question. We are being kept fully informed by the Norwegians and we shall continue to keep in close contact with them. When the results of their findings are announced we shall pay particular attention to them. The Burgoyne report is being considered by the Government and we hope, shortly, to be consulting with outside bodies which have an interest in the matter. In due course the Secretary of State will make an announcement to the House about how we intend to proceed.

Is the Minister aware that the principle referred to in the minority report of the Burgoyne committee—that the Department of Energy is not the right body to exercise responsibility for safety, given the fact that it also has a duty to maximise the output of oil from the North Sea—is a matter that does not require any delay in terms of the accident that occurred in Norwegian waters and that it is a fundamental principle? Does he appreciate that people feel that as long as the same Department is trying to optimise our oil output and look after questions of safety, safety will not be the first priority and that the Government should give the issue urgent consideration?

I appreciate the point of view held by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the Government will carefully consider the minority report which we received together with the majority report.

We are extremely concerned, in relation to the divers, to ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained within the diving industry at all times. We shall continue to do that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not my question about the Burgoyne report have been taken with this question?

Is the hon. Gentleman giving notice that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

No, Mr. Speaker. Should not question 21, on the Burgoyne committee report, have been taken with this question?

What I should have said was that there was a question about the Burgoyne committee report further down the Order Paper. There should not have been the reference to it.

The House will welcome the undertaking given by the Minister that the Government are in close contact, and are collaborating, with the Norwegian Government. However, since there is a possibility that the report on the "Alexander Keilland" disaster might be published during the Summer Recess, can the Minister give an undertaking that he will make a statement to the House arising from that report?

I cannot anticipate the publication of the "Alexander Keilland" report. We have not had an exact indication as to when the report is likely to be available. I think that we shall have to wait until it is before taking the necessary action.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the gas-gathering system for the United Kingdom continental shelf.

As my right hon. Friend said in his reply of 19 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), the Government have given careful consideration to the report from the British Gas Corporation/Mobil study team about a gas-gathering system for the United Kingdom continental shelf. The Government consider it important that a gas-gathering system should be constructed as quickly as possible and my right hon. Friend has, therefore, invited British Gas, Mobil and BP, together with a financial adviser, to form an organising group to develop proposals for the pipeline.

Does the Minister accept that we welcome this long-awaited report and long-overdue decision—and it is long-overdue, whatever the Minister might say? Will he consider the public sector equity stake in the consortium? Does he accept that there is no reason why the public sector should not have the majority stake in the consortium? Will the Minister ensure that United Kingdom companies are made aware of the potential so that they can bid successfully for the plant and equipment involved in this exciting development?

I cannot agree with the suggestion that the decision-making process was slow. The Government received the report on 2 April. It has had to be assessed and evaluated. The Government have done well in making their proposals as quickly as they have. I do not agree that the public sector should have a majority in the equity stake. The public sector will, of course, have an interest. It is not in the best interests of the nation or of the company which is to be formed for the public sector to have a majority stake. Opposition Members frequently confuse State participation with public participation. We hope to encourage public participation.

Will not the development strengthen the case for increasing the number and volume of outlets for the sale of North Sea gas in the United Kingdom, including Ulster?

That matter is under review constantly by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Government's view was given on the question of supplies to Ulster not too long ago.

Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of his hon. Friends on the speed of the decision to proceed with the pipeline? Will he confirm that it represents the single largest energy-saving measure that could be undertaken at present and that it is equivalent to saving 12 million tonnes of oil a year?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is correct. The pipeline has the potential to increase our gas supply, at present consumption levels, by between seven and 12 years.

Does the Minister concede that there is a national interest in ensuring, first, that British citizens get their gas at a reasonable price and, secondly, that the gas supply is continued into the next century? Does he accept that that means that there is a major conservation interest? If the Minister refuses to give a national 51 per cent. equity stake in the company, how does he intend to safeguard the national interest?

The national interest will be fully safeguarded. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the organising committee is examining the best composition for the new company. The nationalised industry sector will not have a majority stake but it seems likely that British Gas will have the largest individual stake. We see no point in committing more public money when plenty of private capital is available.

This is a matter of major concern. The House was given an important announcement in a written answer and now the Minister refuses to deal with how the national interest will be safeguarded when there is only a 30 per cent. equity shareholding. Does the Minister intend to write into the statute of the company the right of the Department of Energy, in certain declared areas, to safeguard the national interest and to lay down certain criteria under which the company will operate?

The gas will be landed in this country. It is not a prerequisite of any scheme which ensures maximum national interest that a nationalised industry has a majority stake. I should have thought that Opposition Members would be learning that lesson at last.

Will the Minister promise that the gas landed from the pipeline system will be made available for the expansion of the petrochemical industry in Scotland in particular and not exported? What consultations has he had with the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Office on this point?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the organising committee has just been set up. It has the task of making recommendations for the creation of a company which will build and operate the pipeline. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will certainly have discussions with the SDA.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether the Atomic Energy Authority plans to offer its houses for sale to tenants on the same terms as will be enjoyed by the tenants of council houses after the passing of the Housing Bill.

The Atomic Energy Authority needs houses to aid recruitment and to facilitate the transfer of employees between sites, some of which are in remote areas including Dounreay. It has no general plans to offer houses for sale unless they become surplus to requirements.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that his answer will be received with disappointment by many of the workers at Dounreay? Is he aware that during the recent visit by the Select Committee on Employment discussions took place with management and unions and that union representatives made it clear that they would like to have the same rights to buy their houses as tenants of council houses?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. We shall study the question that he has raised. He should be aware that the Atomic Energy Authority regards the houses as an aid to recruitment. The situation is different from that in the coal industry, for example, because workers move around more. I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Is the Minister aware that many Conservative councils have used the same argument for opposing the Government's Housing Bill, because it is forcing them to sell houses which they say they need? Is it not ironic that he and the Secretary of State for the Environment have given similar answers and that the Secretary of State has said that the houses owned by his Department will not be offered to sitting tenants?

We shall certainly consider the matter.

Question number 9.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wished to ask a supplementary question on this matter because it deals specifically with my constituency. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) asked a question about my constituents.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I was not aware that his constituents were involved. I shall call the hon. Gentleman because I want to be fair.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Housing Bill does not affect Scotland at all.

Order. It will be fair if I call the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

I am not ungrateful to the hon. Member for Bridlington for his anxiety about my constituents. Does the Minister realise that his announcement will be regarded as illogical since local authorities in the area are not provided with the same powers but are at least as interested in attracting mobile workers to the area by means such as housing?

I appreciate the argument and I undertake that the matter will be discussed with the AEA.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regarding investment in new productive capacity.

I meet the chairman of the NCB frequently. I am still considering the board's capital investment programme.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that this new investment will be used to create a profitable and efficient mining industry, to the benefit of all those who work in it? Can he also refute a recent claim by Mr. Arthur Scargill that the National Coal Board has plans to close 130 pits?

I confirm my hon. Friend's first point. As both sides of the House will accept, the investment which has gone into our coal industry since 1974 is investment to improve capacity of a profitable kind. All that I can do is refer again to the statement which I made during our debate on the Coal Industry Bill on Tuesday of last week when I referred to the comments of Sir Derek Ezra in a broadcast that morning, in the course of which he said:

"Our position on the closure of pits is very clear and will not be changed by the Bill."

The Bill relates to an opportunity, as does the investment in the industry, for expansion.

Will the Minister bear in mind that in every new area that is developed, miners have to be found to work there? Bearing in mind that miners are being drawn from surrounding collieries to make certain that we have the complement required to work at, say, Selby and Belvoir in the future, it means that there is a suspicion in the minds of the miners and their leaders that some pits may be closed. May we be assured by the NCB and by the hon. Gentleman's Department that such fears are unwarranted and have no foundation?

There are two matters which must be reiterated, and all those who have the long-term interests of the coal industry at heart will wish to reiterate them throughout the country. The first is that colliery closures are a management matter for the National Coal Board. The industry has an agreed colliery review procedure with the unions to which this Government adhere. It is very important to stress that throughout the industry. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman will remember from our debate last Tuesday, pits and faces close and open. The great excitement since 1974 is that they have been opening. I remind the House that between 1974 and 1979, 50 pits were closed, and no supporter of the then Government would have thought for a moment that that suggested that the Government did not have a commitment to the coal industry.

Since the hon. Gentleman is quoting at length from the speech that he made last Tuesday in the coal debate, may I remind him that he failed to answer the point put to him, which dealt with the fact that some of the problems of the National Coal Board at the moment and in the future have nothing to do with technical ability but are due to planning constraints? Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say that neither the National Coal Board nor the miners will be penalised in production terms if there are difficulties due to planning constraints?

As I said at the beginning—and I repeat—the Government's commitment in the Coal Industry Bill is to "Plan for Coal". I acknowledge the difficulties of planning constraints which have arisen over the years. At the same time, the Government are committing £600 million plus to the investment in our great coal industry for the next four years. This should be a clear and conclusive answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made in the widening of public participation in investment in North Sea oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is yet in a position to make a further statement on the future of the British National Oil Company.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will bring forward proposals for the sale of shares in British National Oil Company to employees.

Further details of the Government's plans to introduce public participation in the British National Oil Corporation will be given in due course.

Will my hon. Friend continue on target for the privatisation of British National Oil Corporation's exploration and development side so that the British public can be given a real chance to participate rather than obey the call of the Labour Party for participation involving State monopoly control?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain firmly committed to the introduction of private capital into the upstream operation of the, British National Oil Corporation. But hon. Members must await the announcement by my right hon. Friend about the detailed plan.

Does not the Minister recognise that the BNOC has served the public interest extraordinarily well, that it is in control of an increasingly valuable national asset, and that it would be a crime if, for purely political, doctrinaire reasons, a Government flogged it off to private profiteers in the private sector?

I agree that the BNOC has made a good start. However, the Government believe that it can do even better if it has private capital introduced into it.

Better for whom?

It will do better for the nation. Security of supply is already safeguarded.

Will my hon. Friend examine the possibility of allowing increased private participation in the development of the Gas Council-Mobil gas-gathering system, and will he point out to the Opposition that, if private investment can be obtained, it will save taxpayers' money and reduce the public sector borrowing requirement and has nothing to do with safeguarding the overall national interest in terms of what comes out of the end of the pipe?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course.

Will the Minister confirm that there is a difference between private equity in BNOC and bond-holding? When the Minister uses the expression "public capital", is he excluding the possibility of bonds being issued to the general public? Will he confirm that the board of BNOC has unanimously warned him against issuing public equity capital and about the change of control that that would involve and, instead, has advocated some form of bond-holding?

The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to pre-empt the announcement of my right hon. Friend. However, I can confirm to him that in arriving at our decisions we are keeping in close touch with the chairman of the British National Oil Corporation.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what conclusions were reached at the inter-party talks on the handling of Scottish parliamentary business.

I must ask the hon. Member to await the report on the inter-party talks which will be available shortly.

Although many of us would approve an arrangement for Scottish parliamentary committees meeting in Scotland instead of here in Westminster, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is no substitute for genuine devolution? What message does he have for the Scottish Tories who took the advice of Lord Home to vote "No" in the referendum so as to get a better form of devolution than the proposals in the Scotland Act? Is that just another empty Tory promise, like the Hampden Park fiasco?

I cannot comment on the recommendations of the Committee about Scotland. The Committee has not yet reported. It would be quite improper of me to make any comments.

As for the Scottish Tories, I send them a message of good will. I hope that they will redouble their efforts in Scotland to ensure a Tory majority at the next election.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he could not give the House an assurance on Thursday of last week that there would be a debate on these all-party talks at the same time as the debate on devolution for Northern Ireland? If there is such a thing as a West Lothian question, it applies equally to Northern Ireland as it does to Scotland.

I think that it is better to keep these matters distinct. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be time to debate this report after it is published.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that for those of us who still believe in the principle of devolution, the Government are conducting these talks in good faith?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's unnecessary assurance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman perhaps give a hint to the House of what radical and revolutionary proposals will be coming from these talks which will make worth while all the weeks of work that have gone into them?

I am afraid that I cannot give any advance leak of the report. If the hon. Gentleman wants leaks, I suggest he reads The Guardian.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will bring forward proposals to amend the regulations governing conduct in the Galleries of the House.

I have no plans to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend look again at the rule which forbids members of the public from writing or drawing in the Gallery? Now that we broadcast our proceedings, does it really make sense to stop people from making notes in the Gallery when they can sit at home by their radios and do exactly the same? Is it not time, therefore, that we changed this archaic and rather ridiculous regulation?

I have consulted representatives of the Press Gallery about this. They have an interest in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This is a facility available only to Hansard and to those representatives of the press with authorised access to the Press Gallery. I think that if this rule were changed there would be the danger that it could lead to unofficial reporting by people who had failed to gain membership of the Press Gallery.

Will the Leader of the House examine some of the other facilities available to the public in this House? Will he, in particular, look at the facilities given to the public to purchase souvenirs, and so on? They are really appalling and inadequate, and—

Order. The question is about the Galleries of the House, and there is no sale of souvenirs there.

asked the Chancellor of thes Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy towards the provision of time for debates on prayers to annul statutory instruments.

I seek to provide time for such debates whenever there is evidence of a general wish among hon. Members for a particular prayer to be debated.

Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite his generally good record on parliamentary procedural reforms, he is not doing at all well on prayers, and that although fewer prayers against statutory instruments have been tabled in this Session than in many previous Sessions, he has managed to secure debates on them—on the Floor of the House or in Committee—in only just over one-third of cases, and that the rights of Back Benchers have been eroded a great deal in this matter of statutory instruments?

How does the hon. Member know what the effect of my prayers has been? I agree with him, on the issue that he has raised, that the present position is not satisfactory. There will be an opportunity to debate the whole question during the debate on procedure which I have promised the House. There have been rather fewer prayers recently than in earlier Sessions.

Will my right hon. Friend help us to make some progress? I have consulted "Erskine May" on this matter and it, too, is very vague. It refers to the fact that it has not been possible to devise procedures to enable us to question statutory instruments by means of prayers on sufficient occasions. Surely this is one of the essential rights of Back Benchers. Will my right hon. Friend seek to initiate a reform that will mean having a new paragraph in "Erskine May"?

This is very much a matter that can be raised in the procedure debate. I shall be putting proposals before the House on the part of the Government, but it is open to the House to decide what it wishes to take place.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have found it extremely efficacious to pray to him, that my prayer was promptly answered and that the debate was granted, but that it was not much good since the Department concerned refused to take any notice whatever of a stinging defeat inflicted upon it in the Committee which debated the prayer, and that therefore the whole procedure seemed to be otiose?

I am aware of what happened in that Committee. It took place in rather exceptional circumstances, after one and a half hours of discussion, when only nine of the 17 members of the Committee were present. But the general point that my hon. Friend has raised has validity, and I can only say that is should be thoroughly discussed during the debate on procedure.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will bring forward proposals for changing the hours of sittings of the House.

I have no such proposals.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he thinks that every other Parliament in the Western world is able to conduct its affairs during normal working hours? Will he also say whether he thinks it is the most efficient way to deal with legislation to go on into the early hours of the morning, or through the night sometimes? Does not he agree that most of those who prefer that system do so because they like to be able to get on with another job?

The Procedure Committee considered this question and took the view that a radical reorganisation of the hours of sitting of the House should not be recommended. It did, however, recommend the early Friday sitting, and I provided the House with an opportunity to implement that proposal.

I do not think that late-night sittings are desirable. Perhaps I might point out to the hon. Member that on only four out of the 181 sitting days of this Session has the House sat after 4 a.m. [Interruption.] That compares quite favourably with earlier days. On only 72 occasions did the House sit after mid-night. I do not think that in this Session hon. Members have been unduly incommoded.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is not the hours of sitting that are wrong but the amount of legislation which all Governments bring forward? Can we expect some remission in the autumn?

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend. I have said to the House before, and I say again today, that it is my hope that in the next Session of Parliament we shall have a much lighter legislative load, because it is no part of Conservative philosophy to turn the House of Commons into a legislation factory.

asked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied with the effects of the Government publicity organisation.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, today of all days, when the CBI has announced that there is quite a slump among many of its members, the case for high interest rates does not seem to be getting across to many business men? Does not he agree that a Government broadcast as good as the party political broadcast put across last week might go some way towards helping?

I do not think that this is an occasion for a ministerial broadcast. I think that most people in industry and elsewhere are well aware that market conditions rather than the Government determine interest rates.

Was it on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman that it has been decided not to hold the special one-day Cabinet meeting next month? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that he is earning his salary, in view of the total failure of the Government, as well as the failure, inevitably, of their propaganda exercises?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got the idea that there was a fixed Cabinet meeting on the day that he suggests. There was no official announcement of it whatever. Secondly, I am satisfied that the message as to the reasons for the Government's actions and policy is getting across to the public, as the hon. Gentleman will soon discover.

Talking of Government publicity organisations—a matter referred to in the question—has the right hon. Gentleman any comment to make on the rumour that he is to be appointed to a post at the BBC? Does he intend to run the two Government publicity organisations at the same time?

I have seen a certain amount of ill-informed speculation in certain organs of the press. I have no knowledge whatever of this. It is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.

May we take it that that is a load off all our minds—including that of the right hon. Lady—and that there is no possibility of this appalling appointment taking place? We are very gratified that the right hon. Gentleman should have made the announcement with his customary modesty.

Whether the right hon. Gentleman is relieved or not must depend entirely on which appointment he would rather I held.

asked the Paymaster General whether he is satisfied with coordination between the various Government information services in publicising Government achievements since May 1979.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Paymaster General remember issuing a press statement during the election campaign in April last year, claiming that the Labour Party was telling 12 lies about the Tory Party? In view of the fact that virtually all these so-called lies have now turned out to be bitter truths, will the Paymaster General now issue another press statement telling the people the truth—that the Government have more than doubled the rate of inflation, have increased unemployment to over 1½ million, and are clobbering the sick and the disabled with a fivefold increase in prescription charges?

If the hon. Member will go back and look at the statements which were issued by his party on these things during the election, and at the statement which I issued, he will find that everything I said was true.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best possible thing for the Government's propaganda effort is for people to see more of the Opposition? Will he therefore encourage the Opposition to hold as many rallies, public displays and marches as they possibly can, so that the people of this country can see the only ghastly alternative that awaits them?

I take my hon. Friend's point, but I do not share his sadistic instincts.

On the right hon. Gentleman's claim that what was said about the alleged lies during the election has been vindicated, will he be good enough to place in the Library the newspaper containing those 12 comments with his personal comments on what the Government have done in each matter? We shall then be able to see whether his brave words today are justified.

I shall certainly consider that carefully.

When the Royal Air Force last had a debate to itself, in April 1978, my predecessor, the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke at length of the Service's sixtieth anniversary and referred to its

"60 years of splendid achievement in peace and war."—[Official Report, 3 April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 36.]

That is a sentiment that I wholeheartedly endorse after my first year of responsibility for the RAF. I am proud to report a year in which the officers, men and women of the RAF have given themselves unstintingly to the service of our country through their unrelenting work and dedication to duty.

The past years have been difficult ones for all the Services. They have borne a period of uncertainty with patience and fortitude. When we came to office, the Government made certain commitments to the Services. We have kept them, and I shall be detailing later the measures that we have taken. I believe that they have provided a useful platform for the resurgence of confidence and trust that was so badly needed but that we found to be so sadly lacking when we came to power.

I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to all the men and women of the RAF. In the course of the past year I have worked on visiting RAF units, at a rate of approximately one a week, including a mixture of front-line stations and other equally important but less glamorous stations. In all cases, I have seen a motivation and a sense of purpose that manifest themselves in a desire to do tasks as well as possible without thought of pecuniary reward and without looking at the hands of the clock—attitudes that used to be common in society at large, but that, sadly, are not found so often now. It is a privilege to serve as the political head of such a fine service.

The Government are committed to the maintenance of a stable defence effort in the coming years, but, as we stated in the White Paper:

"we shall not feel obliged to adhere slavishly to a particular growth path, nor shall we consider it a failure of policy if we modify our spending plans in either direction from year to year as new information becomes available."

Some have interpreted that statement as a "sell out"—an acceptance that the imperatives of finance will defeat us in our fight to enhance the security of the nation. That is not so.

It is inevitable that policy and finance are interrelated, each influencing the other. The policy cannot survive without money, and money can be well spent only with in the framework of a coherent policy. Both can change the parameters of our defence effort. What we offer when confronted with such issues is not to take the course of least resistance by having less of everything and doing everything less well. We cannot offer an escape from the financial and economic realities in which we find ourselves. These are elements within the overall equation of defence spending. But we can face up to them by being determined to use the resources that are available to the best effect.

The defence of our nation lies firmly within the framework of NATO. The existence of the Alliance has contributed to more than 30 years of peace in Europe, but we cannot be complacent in the face of changing world circumstances if we wish to safeguard our future and that of our children. We must ensure that the Alliance can respond firmly and flexibly to any challenge so that it remains a credible deterrent to aggression. We face an ever-growing threat from the relentless buildup of the Warsaw Pact armed forces.

I remind the House that the Royal Air Force provides forces to all three of the major NATO commanders. Our maritime aircraft patrolling our sea areas and providing airborne early warning cover are assigned to SACLANT or CINCHAN. Other United Kingdom squadrons protecting the home base are assigned to SACEUR, and so are our forces in RAF Germany, which, as part of NATO's Second Allied Tactical Air Force, would be an integral part of the central region order of battle in war in the strike/attack reconnaissance, ground support and air defence roles, as well as providing part of SACEUR's specialist quick reaction forces.

I do not think that I need offer an analysis today of the Warsaw Pact's daunting and growing military capability, which has been well reported in the House and elsewhere. The challenge that faces us is to maintain as our contribution to the Alliance the high standards both of our personnel and of the equipment that we dedicate to NATO's aims in the most appropriate areas to meet the increasing threat. We have made a promising start in facing that challenge and we shall sustain our efforts, as I shall outline in the remainder of my speech.

On Tuesday 17 June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence informed the House of the two bases in the United Kingdom that would house the 10 flights of United States ground-launched cruise missiles to be based in the United Kingdom. This deployment is only one part of a wider programme, agreed upon 12 December 1979 by NATO Defence Ministers, to modernise the Alliance's long-range theatre nuclear forces by the introduction into a number of European countries of 464 new cruise missiles and 108 Pershing II ballistic missiles. The implementation of the modernisation programme underlines the determination of the Government, and that of NATO as a whole, to give first priority to the continued security of our peoples, and underlines our resolute commitment to NATO's policy of deterrence, which has preserved the peace in Europe for more than 30 years.

As the White Paper categorically states, our defence depends on the quality and commitment of the men and women of the Services and the civilian staffs who support them. The latter are an often forgotten, but still essential, element of our defence effort. I take the opportunity of thanking them, especially those associated with the RAF, for their work and loyalty—demonstrated by their turnout of over 90 per cent. on the TUC's abortive day of action on 14 May.

As for dependence on our Service men, it is a question not only of recruiting adequate numbers to maintain strengths but of retaining those in whom we have made a considerable investment in money and the acquistion of skills, so that their experience and expertise is not lost to us. In 1977–78 increasing numbers of experienced officers and men chose to leave the Service prematurely. One of the main reasons was dissatisfaction with pay, exacerbated by overstretch and increased turbulence, which had sapped confidence.

On taking office the Government immediately restored the Services' pay to full comparability with their civilian counterparts, as we had promised before and during the election campaign. We undertook to maintain it therefater at those levels. We endorsed the concept of the military salary and accepted that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body should continue its independent work of assessing and recommending fair and appropriate levels of pay.

During 1979–80, 316 male RAF officers applied for premature release, which represents a reduction of nearly 50 per cent. compared with the 601 who did so in the previous year. The number is less than at any time since before 1972. The picture for airmen is equally encouraging, with 1,782 having applied during 1979–80, compared with 3,132 in the year before—a drop of about 43 per cent.

Recruitment has also benefited significantly from the rise in pay and the Government's commitment to defence. In the year ended 31 March 1980 we took in 50,652 new recruits to the three Services, against 43,366 in the previous year—an increase of 17 per cent., and with only one exception that has been the best performance for 17 years.

The total covers some impressive achievements. In many cases the numbers of good-quality recruits have been limited only by the number of vacancies. On the other hand, there are still problems in finding enough candidates for some trades, including some of the most skilled. With that and the impending decline in the numbers of young people in the population in mind, there is no room for complacency.

In the context of this debate recruitment to the RAF has been well in line with the excellent overall performance of the three Services. In 1979–80 the RAF recruited a total of 11,261 United Kingdom personnel, which is about 11 per cent. higher than in 1978–79 and the highest total for seven years. Like the other Services, however, this achievement, impressive though it is, masks some areas of concern, notably in the recruitment of officers, where we fall short of our targets in some important ground branches, particularly engineers and fighter controllers.

We are taking steps to remedy this state of affairs. In particular, I can inform the House that we shall soon introduce two new incentive schemes aimed at attracting potential young officers. The existing university cadetship scheme is essentially designed for those who are prepared to commit themselves before going to university to a regular career in the RAF. We believe that the length of commitment required by this scheme may be a disincentive for some people who are nevertheless attracted by the idea of a commission in the RAF. In order to tap this potential source we intend offering university bursaries to suitable candidates who are prepared to commit themselves to serving in the RAF on short service commissions. The second scheme—sixth form scholarships—is intended to encourage the promising 16-year-old to focus his interest on the RAF with a view to joining the Service as an officer at the age of 18.

On the question of university cadetships for general duties cadets who will become pilots or navigators in the Service, will the minimum length of engagement when these cadets leave university be eight or 12 years, which is the normal length of a short service commission? Also, will that period include their time at university?

To make sure that I give my hon. Friend a detailed reply, I shall include that answer in my summing up.

I feel that the recruiting potential of the Air Training Corps also deserves a mention. In 1979, former ATC cadets made up 20 per cent. of the total RAF officer intake, 23 per cent. of the airmen and no less than 38 per cent. of apprentices came from the corps. These figures show how much the RAF relies on the ATC for its recruits, and I welcome this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the many men and women who devote their time and skills to the work of the ATC.

In pursuing proposals contained in a report initiated by my predecessor, work is progressing towards the reorganisation of our recruitment network so that, wherever possible, the Service careers information offices can be collocated to their mutual benefit. The final studies stemming from the report have now been completed, and by the late 1980s we hope to have a total of around 190 CIOs, of which nearly 80 will be shared by two or three Services. This compares with current figures of 241, of which 57 are collocated. The recommendations will, naturally, take some time to implement. In many cases the leases held on current CIO sites are extremely advantageous and we would not wish to relinquish this benefit until their term has expired. Implementation must, therefore, of necessity be on a "where appropriate" basis if excessive additional expenditure is not to be incurred. Undoubtedly the establishment of collocated offices will, in the short term, prove to be rather more expensive than at present. This is primarily due to the rise of leasing costs in recent years. We could not realistically hope to get new leases on such advantageous terms as previously existed. However, in the longer term the overall recruitment effort should be carried out in a more cost-effective manner.

These are the means by which we seek to obtain and retain regular manpower for our defence needs. However, there are deficiencies. All cannot be put right overnight. It will take time to undo the damage done in previous years, but I am encouraged by the response given to the steps taken by the Government. I am also heartened by the response to our efforts to enhance our defence posture by harnessing the goodwill, patriotism and enthusiasm of many members of the public who wish to do their bit in the volunteer reserves. In July 1979, three Royal Auxiliary RAF Regiment squadrons were formed to assist in the defence of United Kingdom airfields. Recruitment to these units has been good, and has been assisted by the increased rates of training bounty announced during 1979. As hon. Members will know, in a time of emergency we would have to rely to a large degree for reinforcement of our forces in Europe upon civil aircraft flown by civilian aircrew. The Civil Aviation Bill, which is at present going through Parliament, will ensure that the aircraft will be available when needed. I am considering whether any changes need to be made in the legislation relating to aircrew. One possibility might be to embody them into a reserve, but this may not be the best arrangement, and, indeed, a similar scheme tried some years ago was not particularly successful. The issue is complex but vital, and still requires further study. I hope to be able to report progress to the House in the near future.

Although our Armed Forces are all-professional, they are not large. The RAF is only about 90,000 strong. Consequently, we must make the most of all our defence assets—both Regular and volunteer manpower and their equipment—by ensuring that they are highly trained, proficient and professional in their duties.

To ensure the maintenance of the highest standards, for which the Services are justly renowned, it is obviously essential that the forces should train realistically in those tasks that they would have to undertake in war. For the RAF this includes practising its role of attacking from the air the ground forces of any aggressor and striking at his airfields, bases and supply areas. To penetrate the Warsaw Pact anti-aircraft screen, both land and air based, our planes will need to fly fast and low. These are demanding requirements, and our pilots and aircrew must constantly practice such sorties over representative terrain in order to maintain their skills.

Whilst we utilise training areas overseas, the great bulk of such flying takes place over the United Kingdom. I fully appreciate that there must be a balance between these military needs and the safety and convenience of the general public. Accordingly, we minimise the hazards and disturbances by requiring aircraft to avoid densely populated areas, airfields, nuclear power stations, hospitals, and many other areas. They must fly higher and slower than they would in combat, and to the greatest degree possible we also restrict activity over weekends and after dark.

Thus, the low flying that my colleagues see in their constituencies is really a compromise to enable pilots to be trained as far as possible for the far greater speeds and lower heights at which they would need to fly in wartime to stay beneath the enemy's radar cover. Most of the peacetime training is carried out between 250ft and 500ft, and we therefore welcome the chances to go to the United States and Canada for the Red Flag and Maple Flag exercises, where our aircrews have an ideal chance to fly at the much higher speeds and very low level that they would fly in wartime.

In that context, I add that we are currently discussing the possible use of Goose Bay, in Canada, for very low-flying training using the Tornado aircraft's terrain-following radar.

As most hon. Members know, from 1 January 1979, the United Kingdom low-flying region was expanded to cover most of the country. Consequently, many more people unfamiliar with such activities were seeing low-flying aircraft than was previously the case. As a consequence, there was an initial increase in the number of complaints. There is no question but that the enlargement of the areas has greatly improved the training facilities and has distributed the low flying far more evenly throughout the United Kingdom than was possible before. Some residual inconvenience is, however, unavoidable, and I apologise to those people who feel that their localities are seeing and hearing too many low-flying aircraft.

In 1979 there were, regrettably, a number of aircraft accidents, and these have been recorded for the first time in volume 2 of the White Paper. It is true that there were more accidents in 1979, compared with some previous years. However, flying accidents do not occur with predictable regularity. If they did, there would be reason to suspect a common cause—and it would be a mistake, therefore, to draw premature conclusions from the recent spate of accidents, all of which happened in quite different circumstances. The media have tended, erroneously, to link many of these accidents solely to the demands of low flying. Again in 1979 I authorised the release of summaries of accident reports to the House and to other people in order to provide more details and better informed comment on such incidents. This constitutes one more element in our overall campaign to make more information available for a wider debate on defence issues.

In speaking of accidents, I know that hon. Members would expect me to mention the one that involved a Buccaneer aircraft participating in the Red Flag exercise, Nevada, on 7 February of this year, tragically killing both crewmen. We have of course kept the House fully informed of the progress being made. Currently, the position is that flight trials of a specially instrumented Buccaneer are continuing along with the investigation of the cause of the accident in February. Neither programme of work has yet enabled a definite conclusion to be drawn, but I can report growing confidence that sufficient information may be available as early as next month to allow a decision on the resumption of flying by the greater part of the Buccaneer fleet. In the meantime, the Buccaneers remain available and declared to NATO for their war roles and we are satisfied that aircrew skills can be kept up to the required standard for this period on Hunters and simulators.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about accident statistics, especially as I have campaigned for normal publication of them for a number of years. Will he go one step further than merely publishing the losses of aircraft and the casualties involved and undertake that where the inquiries conducted by the Department make it possible to identify the cause of the accident, that information will also be published? If it is, it will go even further to establish full confidence in the concern of the RAF for its safety and that of the public as a whole.

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the new procedure of publishing a narrative of the board of inquiry proceedings will go a long way, if not all the way, to meet the point that he made, because it will cover the cause of an accident. If he is referring to the defence White Paper, I should explain that I am talking about each accident as it occurs. It might make the White Paper unduly long if we were to publish all the figures as a compilation at the end of the year.

The Buccaneer is one element of our current front-line force of aircraft. Members will not wish me to give an exhaustive list of the present familiar inventory of types and the roles they are expected to perform. However, I should like quickly to run over some of the types now entering service and the new equipments which we hope to have in the future.

The first Tornado GR1 aircraft is to be delivered to the tri-national training establishment at RAF Cottesmore in a few days' time ready for the training of British, German and Italian aircrew to begin early in 1981. Out of a total planned RAF purchase of 220 GR1s, 146 aircraft have so far been ordered for the RAF in three batches, while a fourth batch is due to be ordered later this year. This fourth batch will include for the first time a production order for the Tornado F2 air defence variant, of which a total of 165 is planned.

A number of production GR1 aircraft have already flown at British Aerospace, Warton, and at MBB in the Federal Republic of Germany, and last October saw the first flight of the air defence variant. This prototype, the first of three due to be flying by the end of 1980, has so far handled very well and is performing in line with our expectations.

The Tornado will form the backbone of the RAF's front line in the 1980s, and the Service is looking forward to the considerable enhancement to our capability that this aircraft will bring.

The other major and complementary component of our front line is the offensive support aircraft fleet currently provided by Jaguars and Harriers.

In my closing speech in the defence debate on 29 April 1980, I gave then, and I repeat now, an assurance to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) that there would be no unnecessary delay in announcing a decision on AST403 which specifies a new offensive support aircraft. The House will be aware that AST403 now deals only with the Jaguar replacement. Studies had earlier shown that technology was not sufficiently advanced to permit a V/STOL capability to be combined with the required supersonic performance and handling qualities in a single airframe. Therefore, it was not possible to find one solution to both the Jaguar and Harrier replacements. As a result, and because we firmly believe in the need for V/STOL, we have decided that our present Harriers should be improved to enable them to remain effective in service until the end of the century.

In accordance with our objective of seeking collaboration where the conditions are advantageous, we have for some time been investigating the possibility of a joint project with France and Germany to develop a new tactical—or European—combat aircraft to meet AST403. While at first blush this sounds an attractive proposition, there are of course many different factors—budgetary, operational, industrial—which need to be taken into account in deciding whether collaboration is the right way to go. It is too soon, at present, to say when decisions might be reached. Our prime aim must be to provide the RAF with the most cost-effective aircraft to meet its needs.

A good example of the sort of benefits which may be gained through collaboration with our allies is that of the advanced airfield attack weapon JP233, currently being developed by a joint United Kingdom-United States team. Although the costs of this joint programme are being shared equally between the two countries, virtually all the development work is being carried out in the United Kingdom. Similarly, initial production work is likely to take place in the United Kingdom. We know that our American allies share our commitment to this vital runway denial programme. It would be unwise, however, to assume that the Soviet Union is not also actively interested in runway denial weapons. That being the case, the advantages of the Harrier V/STOL force are obvious. The ability to operate at a time when runways would be in short supply could be the crucial element in attempting to halt an armoured breakthrough. That being so, we wish not only to continue with the Harrier in increased numbers on the central front but to enhance its performance capabilities. We are examining options for this improved version.

Two ways of meeting this requirement—known as Air Staff Requirement 409—have been identified. One is a British Aerospace development which features a larger and thicker wing, giving greater lift and fuel capacity, and with extra pylons for weapon carriage, plus other im provements. The other option is that being developed by McDonnell Douglas for the United States Marine Corps and known as the AV8B. This features design improvements within the Harrier concept. We are currently working towards a decision between these two options and this will take account of a recent programme of flight evaluation of the AV8B pre-prototype undertaken by British pilots in the United States.

I am sure that the House will appreciate that several complex and interlocking factors are involved in our deliberations and that while there must be no unnecessary delay in deciding the way forward, we equally recognise the importance of not rushing into decisions. Important industrial considerations need to be carefully weighed, and the position of the United States Government and their commitment to any joint AV8B programme, which, by virtue of a large combined order, could generate considerable work for British industry, has to be established. Thus, while I hope that it will be possible to announce a decision on the Harrier before too long, I am not yet in a position to say when that might be.

We are also of course mindful of the need to maintain the effectiveness of the existing Harrier force, and are considering what improvements could usefully be incorporated in our present aircraft.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the large time scale involved in arriving at decisions on in-service or replacement aircraft? The Tornado was the replacement for the TSR2, which was cancelled about 15 years ago by the then Labour Government. It is essential that we should make decisions at an early stage if we are to make the replacements in time.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I only wish that we could have aircraft like the Tornado in service now, instead of having to wait.

I know that the House will agree that the Harrier is an example of supreme British inventiveness which confers considerable operational benefits on our forces and is one that we should continue to exploit.

As some hon. Members are aware, there is a need to replace the Devon and Pembroke aircraft in the RAF's communications fleet. These aircraft are over 25 years old and will become increasingly more expensive to maintain and difficult to operate within the crowded airspace of North-West Europe. Negotiations are being pursued to provide the replacement aircraft in the early 1980s, but, since these negotiations involve complex industrial and financial factors, it would not be proper for me to go into further details until they are completed.

In the field of missiles, it was recently anounced that an improved Mk II version of the Sky Flash medium range air-to-air missile, currently in service, is to be developed. This missile will make the most advantage of the sophisticated radar installed in the advanced Tornado F2 when it comes into service in the mid-1980s, and will greatly enhance the RAF's capability in this area. The Aim 9L Sidewinder short range missile is expected to come into service with the RAF next year. Together these missiles will form the main armament of our air defence aircraft for some considerable time to come, although we are already considering what form the next generation of missiles might take—possibly a collaborative project.

To go with these new air defence aircraft and missiles, it is equally important to have a modern command and control system. Two major components of this are the airborne early warning aircraft and the ground-based radar chain. The programme to develop the Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft to replace the Shackleton force is continuing, and the first of the three development production aircraft has only recently come off the assembly line at British Aircraft Establishment Woodford. This aircraft is to begin a programme leading to its first flight in August of this year. These aircraft will form the United Kingdom contribution to NATO AEW force and will provide the surveillance cover essential to the air defence of the United Kingdom.

The Minister talks about missiles in the context of a joint collaborative project. What kind of missiles is he talking about in that context?

I am talking about air-launched missiles of different ranges. If the hon. Gentleman develops his question in a speech later, I shall be glad to respond. There is a proposal to consider a package of air-to-air missiles, which would be either short or medium-range. The difference is largely a function of range.

One squadron of this NATO AEW force will be equipped and will build up gradually to become operational in the mid-1980s. The United Kingdom radar stations are being modernised in a comprehensive programme, and the first contract for two of the new radars has just been announced.

In this review of some of our new equipment I have mentioned the Tornado F2, the Nimrod AEW aircraft and air-to-air missiles, all of which, together with our surface-to-air missiles and land-based surveillance radars, will come together to form a closely inter-related and interdependent set of systems. For the first time, we have included in this year's White Paper a detailed description of how these many elements, which together comprise our air defence forces, would act in co-ordination to counter the threat of air attack in the United Kingdom. I promised in my closing speech in the defence debate to cover the subject of air defence on this occasion.

The strategic importance of the United Kingdom makes it an inevitable target in any conflict with the Warsaw Pact. Hon. Members have seen recorded in the White Paper that the number of interceptions which we chose to make of Soviet aircraft entering the United Kingdom air defence region rose from four a week in 1978 to five a week in 1979. Accordingly, air defence is a matter to which the Government attach great importance. There is a very large forward programme for upgrading these defences, costing hundreds of millions of pounds. This includes, in addition to the Tornado F2 air defence aircraft, the extensive modernisation of our ground operations centres, communications systems and surveillance radars under the acronym UKADGE—United Kingdom air defence ground environment—which will considerably enhance the capabilities of our air defence command and control system, together with the conversion of nine ex-civilian VC10 aircraft to the air-to-air refuelling role.

My hon. Friend used the word "modernisation". Does that include hardening?

Yes.

We are also actively considering the possibility of giving our existing fleet of transport VC10s an in-flight refuelling capability.

On coming to office we announced, within weeks, additions to that programme which included: the formation of a third Lightning squadron; improvements to the Phantom's missile control system; and the arming of part of our Hawk aircraft fleet with the Aim 9L missile. The number of Hawks able to carry this missile has risen to about 100, following the additional buy of that aircraft announced in the defence debate.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a third Lightning squadron. When does he expect that it will be formed and be able to fulfil an operational role?

I expect that the squadron will be operational in the early part of 1982.

The pilot shortage which we inherited on coming to power has not been allowed to prejudice the improvements planned to the RAF air defence forces. It is our firm intention to keep the air defence front line up to strength at all times. Steps to remedy the pilot shortage have already been taken by the opening of a third basic flying training school last year at Church Fenton to increase our training capacity. However, fully trained pilots are not produced overnight, and it will take time for these measures to take effect.

I have said previously in the House that I am not satisfied with the current state of our air defence, and it is certainly an area where, ideally, I should like to do more, but there are formidable difficulties. For example, introducing a new foreign fighter aircraft would be damaging to our industry and would pose severe logistic problems. It has not proved possible to advance the in-service date of the Tornado F2 at a cost which is acceptable. Some may regard the measures already announced as modest, but I believe that they are none the less significant and valu able improvements. Our record at least demonstrates that we are fully alive to the advantages which such possibilities might present.

If my hon. Friend so chooses, when will he be in a position to announce the conclusions that arise from the Elder Forest 1980 exercise?

I shall come to that in about five seconds. We regularly hold exercises to test our air defences, and hon. Members will have seen the extensive media coverage given to the latest of these, code-named Elder Forest, held on 14 and 15 April. This was the first time since the 1950s that we had tested the whole of the United Kingdom air defence system against simulated enemy raids of the size and density that might be expected in war. The attacking forces, comprising aircraft from other NATO air forces as well as some of our own RAF offensive aircraft, simulated an attack plan concentrating on United Kingdom air defence bases and radars.

I know that there is a good deal of interest in the outcome of this exercise, but the House will realise that detailed information on interception rates and numbers of sorties achieved by defending fighters would be of great intelligence value to a potential enemy and therefore cannot be published.

However, all elements of the air defence forces performed well. Had these been real attacks I have no doubt that we would have been hard pressed, but we would, nevertheless, have given a good account of ourselves. I can tell the House that the interception rates which our pilots and SAM units achieved would have inflicted heavy losses on the enemy. This kind of joint exercise is further evidence of the active and valuable co-operation within NATO. Although we are grateful to all the NATO air forces that took part, I should like to single out the presence of the United States F15 fighter aircraft from Bitburg for a special welcome.

Such exercises draw attention to another objective of our air defence policy, namely, the maintenance of the ability of our airfields to continue functioning, even after attack. Uncovered aircraft on the ground present attractive and particularly vulnerable targets. Without hardened aircraft shelters, a significant number of aircraft are likely to be destroyed on the ground whatever other measures are provided. The RAF has therefore begun a major programme for the construction of hardened facilities at its airfields.

Work is also currently in progress on the construction of hardened facilities at four East Anglian airfields used by the United States Air Force as main operating bases in this country.

Rapid runway repair is one aspect of a whole range of problems associated with the repair of airfield damage in wartime. Progress here has not been as rapid as we would have hoped, but we are currently studying what we hope will be economic solutions to the problem.

Hon. Members will also know from previous statements in the House that the Rapier low-level air defence system is now fully deployed with six squadrons of the RAF Regiment, four of which are in RAF Germany and the other two at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Lucas. Initially, equipped with the optical version, three of these squadrons have now received the Blindfire all-weather equipment, and the others will be converted over the next 12 months or so, as equipment is delivered by the manufacturers. When all the Rapier squadrons in Germany have received their Blindfire kits, the Bloodhound squadron in Germany will be redeployed to the United Kingdom to strengthen the air defences in Eastern England. I am also extremely pleased to say that detailed negotiations with the United States authorities are in hand for the purchase of this excellent British system by the USAF to protect its bases in the United Kingdom. This can only be to our mutual advantage, since I consider that sale of Rapier to the USAF is of singular importance not only to British industry but to the United Kingdom as a whole. It will demonstrate what can be achieved in the field of NATO defence co-operation to the mutual advantage of both ourselves and the United States. I visited Washington last week, and I was able to confirm that negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily.

I am glad to hear that. However, does my hon. Friend also recog- nise that the need for the Americans to provide adequate point defence of their bases in this country is an overriding NATO obligation? We should not therefore feel particularly grateful to them for buying a piece of British kit on this occasion. It is an obligation which they should discharge, irrespective of any industrial offset.

I think that I can assure my hon. Friend that the Americans realise that this is a prime NATO requirement.

On that note of optimism for British industry, I think it appropriate to draw to a conclusion my opening remarks. Of necessity, this must be something of a "snapshot", albeit a rather lengthy one, of the current state of the Royal Air Force—a sophisticated, accomplished and highly professional Service in which we can show justifiable pride; pride—but not complacency. There are areas, such as air defence and pilot numbers, where things could be better. I have not attempted to gloss over these problems. In my speech as an Opposition spokesman in the 1978 defence debate I said, among other things, that we should not hide difficulties. This is a policy that we have actively followed in the White Paper and the defence debate, and I hope that hon. Members will feel and accept that I have pursued the same course this afternoon.

Defence is expensive. Our problems cannot be solved without the expenditure of scarce resources, and the solutions will take time to come to fruition. But solved they must and will be.

It is, perhaps, appropriate that I should make this speech immediately on returning from the United States where, together with the Minister, I participated—if that is the right term—in "Exercise Sealink 80". Indeed, during my time in the United States in the past week I viewed with amazement the openness with which defence decisions are discussed in that country and the vast array of material available for public consumption. American defence officials reminded me that the cardinal rule in defence discussions was best summed up by the former American Defence Secretary James Schlesinger, who said:

"While everyone is entitled to his own opinion, no one is entitled to his own facts."

It seems that the Government deny precisely that principle.

When they came to power, the Conservative Government publicly declared their conviction that an open and intelligent debate on defence was essential, yet defence decisions continue to be made in secret. Indeed, I was embarrassed when I was in the United States at showing a couple of Congressmen our defence White Paper when theirs comprises a densely packed 300 or more pages, supplemented by a 100-page statement issued by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Congressmen were amazed to learn that here we have just a one-day debate on a matter of such vital importance as air defence.

The important issues of cruise missile deployment and Polaris replacement were not mentioned during the Minister's speech.

One is American and the other is for the Royal Navy. That is why.

Regardless of where one stands on this issue, one must, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has pointed out on a number of occasions, resent the secrecy. I saw the hon. Member for Aldershot in the Chamber earlier, but he is not present now. One must resent the secrecy with which these decisions are made and the scant information that is offered to the House of Commons.

Although the Polaris replacement might appear to be primarily a Navy matter—as one newly-fledged expert has just pointed out from a sedentary position—it cannot be separated from any aspect of the debate about defence.

I believe that there are not enough resources to do the things that the Government say they will do in the White Paper. If the Minister but turns the book of history back a couple of pages, he will come across a very interesting publication which he wrote with a gentleman named James Bellini. He said in that book:

"The industrial implications of defence policies should be integrated with wider economic planning procedures."

He went on to say:

"Such integration of defence planning with national economic planning would be an essential part of any realistic programme for economic regeneration. Defence production should be treated as a priority category in longer-term planning by the NEB and NEDO."

Far be it for me to throw those words back at the hon. Gentleman. He is an ambitious man. There is nothing wrong with that. Perhaps I fall into the same category. Many of us are ambitious once elected to this House. However, I do not feel that the present Prime Minister would approve of such interventionist philosophies, particularly from one of her defence spokesmen. I shall be interested to hear, later tonight perhaps, whether the Minister still holds those views. If he does, I should like to know whether he intends to publish them again or to keep them quiet.

Under the Government, defence expenditure is isolated from general economic policy. While public spending is being cut, and despite the fact that we are already devoting more of our gross national product to defence than is any European ally, the Government say that they will go ahead and increase defence expenditure.

Surely defence spending cannot be harnessed to the good of the nation, because the Government have rejected the whole principle of economic planning for the nation. In this book—although I would not say that it was compulsive bed-time reading, it is certainly interesting stuff—the Minister went on to say:

"Avionic requirements provide jobs for several thousand specialists at Ferranti, Marconi-Elliott and Smith."

Will the Minister say today that he is satisfied with last week's decision concerning Ferranti? I know that he was not present for it. I was not present either, but I have read it and I hope that the Minister has read it, too. Is he satisfied that that is the best method of promoting technological industries, which play such an important role in Britain's defence? The Minister would do well to reacquaint himself with his book and to recognise that defence expenditure depends on a healthy economy.

In short, a nation cannot build tanks, ships and aircraft which are necessary for its defence when a large proportion of our industrial plant lies idle, when vast numbers of the work force are unemployed and when inflation is running rampant. Resolving our economic problems should be our No. 1 defence priority, yet under the Government that appears to be impossible.

Doubtless there will be many speakers in the debate who will tell us about the dangers of a Soviet onslaught. Indeed, when listening to Conservative Members I sometimes feel that they do more to promote the myth of Soviet invincibility than does the KGB. The defence White Paper tells us more about the Soviet air force than it does about the Royal Air Force. Therefore, it is important, particularly in debates such as this, to put the Warsaw Pact threat—for threat it is—into its proper context and perspective.

For example, as the International Institute for Strategic Studies recently stated:

"Any squadron comparison"

that is, between the two respective armed bodies—

"really ought to take into account that a United States squadron averages between 12 and 24 planes, while the average Soviet squadron comprises 10 to 14 planes."

Again, according to the same study, NATO at present outnumbers the Soviets in fighter and ground attack aircraft by 2,125 to 1,675. I have no doubt that the Soviet Union is doing everything possible to right that imbalance. Playing the numbers game is one thing that the Soviets are extremely good at, and one aspect of their defence policy which has been consistent over the years. Whilst they have a large number of interceptors, they have only 113 air refuelling tankers currently, as compared with over 500 such tankers in the United States Air Force.

Although there will no doubt be a few speakers in this debate who will dilate upon the subject of the Backfire bomber, studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office recently show that the nuclear striking power of 66 FB111s is equivalent to that of more than 200 Backfire bombers. Again, according to the international institute, NATO has a higher proportion of multi-purpose aircraft of good performance over their full mission profile, particularly in range, payload and all-weather capability. In comparison, the Soviet all-weather capability is recognised to be fairly low.

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's analysis. He has spoken about the International Institute for Strategic Studies and he has quoted from Congressional hearings. He has not once mentioned the professional advice of the heads of the Royal Air Force, such as the late Sir Andrew Humphrey, Sir Neil Cameron and Sir Michael Beetham, who have all, in succession, emphasised the increase in quality, hitting power, training and effectiveness of the Warsaw Pact air forces. That is remarkable.

It is only remarkable that the hon. Gentleman has made two interventions, one from a sedentary position, during the six minutes of my speech. It is a little difficult to mention every aspect of policy, whether on air defence or anything else, during about seven minutes. I merely thought that it was about time that the House heard what I might perhaps call more impartial observers than the hon. Gentleman feel about the comparative strength of the two pacts.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have given the hon. Gentleman one opportunity. He will not get another bite at the cherry. He will have to make his own speech in his own time.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I must move on. If the hon. Gentleman would care to intervene later, I should be only too glad to allow that.

The institute points out that NATO has a higher proportion of multi-purpose aircraft than does the Soviet Union. The Soviets dispose of only four types of all-weather jets. The most capable of these, the Fencer, constitutes only 4 per cent. of its present aviation inventory. The institute estimates that it is scheduled to become only 14 per cent. of that inventory, as a maximum. Soviet pilots, so far as is known, receive only 60 per cent. of the training received by NATO pilots. Any expert comparison indicates that Soviet pilots' technological ability, technical ability and ability to fly and control their aircraft is vastly inferior to the ability of Royal Air Force pilots.

No discussion such as that which we are holding would be complete without some mention of strategy in the future. This was conspicuously absent from the Minister's speech. Any discussion of such strategy must surely start from an appraisal of the defence budget itself. After all, such a budget is supposed to reflect a nation's aspirations and apprehensions in the present world. More importantly, it should be an admission of each nation's limitations and the specific role that it can play in maintaining world peace.

Britain's current defence budget does not reflect a real world view. Basically, the defence White Paper conveys the aspirations of a super Power, while seemingly implying that the nation's resources are endless. At present, Britain is faced with a strange paradox. Although in the future we might spend more on defence, we might end up being less secure than we are at the present time. By pursuing Tornado, Britain can boast the best aircraft in the world. However, it is questionable whether the idea of maintaining all-round forces, through aircraft like Tornado, supports Britain's claim as a substantial medium-range Power at the present time.

The RAF strategy, as outlined in the White Paper, appears to have two deficiencies. It seems to be undermining the allocation of defence resources to real contingencies by perpetuating the forces needed to fulfil a political role, apparent only to many Conservative Members. It also subverts the NATO goal of collectively balancing those forces and permits, through that imbalance, additional problems that will appear and according to the Minister, have appeared, in air defence.

This misconception warps the air budget as expressed in the White Paper. The most costly of the budget programmes cover all front-line squadrons of the Royal Air Force. It involves the sum of £865 million, or 17 per cent. of the budget, over 50,000 Service men and 11,000 civilian employees. Through Tornado, Britain could control three nations' air programmes. However, the question that should be posed is whether such a multi-role aircraft, stressing deep interdiction, is not out of tune with the blitzkrieg attack that stresses the need for defensive air power. This is particularly important for Britain because its Army is probably the most deficient in fire power of almost all the NATO allies.

Britain's air role is seemingly based on the concept of deep interdiction to disrupt any reinforcement and re-supply of Warsaw Pact forces based on a long war scenario. But, surely, in a blitzkrieg, such attacks would not affect the initial combat capabilities of the Warsaw Pact forces, which would be largely self susstaining. A Congressional Budget Office study entitled "Planning the Tactical Air Force", dated December 1977, stated:

Assistance to ground forces from the first moment should be of high priority. Attacks on enemy forces, facilities and logistics far behind the battle lines will not be immediately effective in slowing the Pact onslaught and this should be accorded a secondary priority."

The short war assumption has significant implications for tactics and priorities. It suggests that long range interdiction and counter air attack should rank well below battlefield involvement and the attainment of local air superiority through aerial combat. For these tasks, relatively few highly sophisticated and extremely expensive multi-mission aircraft could be less suitable than a larger number of simpler, cheaper and specialised aircraft.

rose—

I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. I have heard his sedentary interventions. He must make his own speech in his own time, if he succeeds in catching Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.

rose—

I have also listened to the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on numerous occasions in the House. I do not intend to give way.

Britain, perhaps to preserve stature by rushing this expensive programme to demonstrate that it can produce the world's most expensive and sophisticated aircraft, is avoiding the changing nature of modern air power. The new strategy has been fostered by two developments.

For whom is the hon. Gentleman speaking—the national executive?

Many opposition Members resent implications of lack of patriotism if at any time we dare to question any aspect of defence expenditure.

The hon. Gentleman has made a personal attack. Will be give way?

I have not even started on the hon. Gentleman. The new strategy has been fostered by two developments. The first is the mounting cost of tactical aircraft. New aircraft now being deployed in the West, like the F15 and the Tornado, cost almost four times the amount of the aircraft they are replacing. Tornado is by far NATO's most expensive aircraft. It will need NATO's most expensively trained pilots. The second reason is changing technology, particularly the development of precision guided munitions and electronic counter measures.

Historically, offensive air power has implied mass firepower, largely because of the basic inaccuracy of the dropped bomb. Dependence on mass firepower was the result of two related factors. First, little more than inspired guesswork was attached to the release of the weapon, until comparatively recently. Secondly, variables affecting the precision of the bomb, such as actual height, speed of the aircraft and wind velocity were hit-and-miss affairs.

Experience in Vietnam showed that in order to destroy a small bridge, 160 bombs were required. Later in the war, with the introduction of precision-guided munitions—PGM or so-called "smart bombs"—only four laser-guided bombs were needed. Precision-guided weapons have saved money in bombs and, more importantly, they have saved pilots and aircraft.

The launching of 160 bombs required 10 aircraft which released their bombs in groups of eight in two passes over the target. Each time they were vulnerable to low level anti-aircraft fire, while the rest of the group, waiting for their pass, was vulnerable to SAM missiles. Waiting for 20 separate passes increased the time of aircrafts over targets, while subjecting more pilots to the hazards of low level defence. In comparison, four smart bombs were delivered by a single aircraft with his wingman for cover. The pilot did not have to subject himself to low-level anti-aircraft fire, and made only two attack runs, so vastly decreasing the time over the target.

Precision-guided weapons have revolutionised the concept of close air support. Traditionally, close air support was coordinating air strikes to soften targets and to remove obstacles. Given the inaccur acy of bombs, specific targets would have to be taken by infantry or destroyed by tanks. PGM allow aircraft to strike directly at targets. No longer is air power relegated to creating havoc behind enemy front lines or to attacking supply lines. It could almost replace the need for tanks on the battlefield.

Given the blitzkreig nature of the Warsaw Pact threat, one must question the need, as Congress has done, to attack supply lines. In a short war, the advancing forces would be largely self-sustaining. More importantly, it makes little sense to attack the enemy rear end when his forward forces have just destroyed one's own defences. With Tornado, the British selected battlefield interdiction rather than close air support. As a swing-wing fast plane designed to drop a large number of free-release bombs at very high speed, its accuracy is obviously questionable.

What is surely needed, particularly given Britain's overall lack of fire power compared with our NATO allies, and the fact that we will be defending them in what is most likely to be the invasion area in Western Europe, is perhaps a slower moving and less technically superior aircraft which can fly behind enemy lines, propping up friendly tanks.

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that aircraft can take on the role of tanks on a battlefield has he spoken to any RAF pilots? They will tell him of the severe problems involved in trying to follow the directions of a forward air controller, especially when flying very low. It is impossible for them to undertake the role that he is trying to assign to them.

I have spoken to RAF pilots about this matter and to pilots who have flown in combat in other parts of the world.

Does the hon. Member mean that he has been talking to Russians?

What did they say?

I thought that I was doing my best to tell the hon. Gentleman what they said, and to explain that the strategy which the present Government are following, and which the previous Labour Government might also have followed, and might have been overtaken by events. I am trying to do no more and no less than that.

Is this a change of policy?