asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 16 November, Official Report, c. 136, whether the Exocets used by the Argentine contained British components.

It may be of assistance to the House if, in answering this question, I explain that there are three types of Exocet currently in production: the ship-to-ship MM38, which is in service with the Royal Navy, the air-launched AM39, and the more recently developed, advanced ship-to-ship version known as MM40. The Royal Navy's purchase of MM38, negotiation of which began under the Labour Government, was arranged under a memorandum of understanding finally signed by the Conservative Government in June 1971. One object of this memorandum of understanding was to ensure that a significant package of work was placed with British firms as an offset. Because of their expertise, British firms have also obtained a number of contracts for the other two Exocet programmes that I have mentioned, in addition to the work on MM38.

Does the Minister agree, having given that answer, that, as 40 British companies are manufacturing parts for the Exocet, it is possible that British components could have been fitted to the Exocets that were used by the Argentines in the Falklands? Does he further agree that, as we have condemned the French for re-commencing supplies of the Exocet, if hostilities broke out we could find British components being used in the Exocets that were manufactured previously and sold to the Argentines? Does he agree that that would be indefensible, immoral and hypocritical?

The considerations that the hon. Gentleman raises must have been in the mind of the Labour Government in 1969 when they drew up the memorandum of understanding that applied to the acquisition of the Exocet system by the Royal Navy. As the Royal Navy will still be taking deliveries until next year, the hon. Gentleman's question does not apply.

Is it not true that a number of companies in this country are involved in contracts covering a period much longer than that in which it would have been possible to make a decision on the Falklands conflict, and that decisions have been taken for them to participate in these contracts by Governments of both political parties over a period of years? Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we would not wish to be in any way associated with weapons that kill British service men, the contractual periods are such that they could apply to Governments of all political parties?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The contract period is well over 12 years so far, let alone any period in the future. I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that the type of allegations being levelled from the Opposition Benches are nothing less than nauseating hypocrisy.

When will the Government stop the sale of all arms and components directly or indirectly to Argentina?

The Government's position has been made clear in relation to all completed systems and main systems. I made it clear in my main answer that the normal supply of end-user certificates, which, as the hon. Lady will know, is a way of determining where particular compondents will end up, is not appropriate. The components we are discussing are small and readily available elsewhere in the international market.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence by how much the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other Warsaw Pact countries have increased the number of nuclear warheads targeted on western Europe in the last five years; and by how much the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries have responded similarly in the same period.

Since 1977 the number of Soviet warheads on longer range intermediate nuclear missiles targeted on western Europe has increased by about 400 to a total of nearly 1,000 because of the deployment of SS20 missiles, each of which has three independently targetable warheads. NATO has no comparable intermediate missile systems and, moreover, has unilaterally withdrawn 1,000 nuclear warheads for shorter range systems from its inventory. The planned NATO modernisation programme will entail no increase in NATO's warhead numbers.

I hope that my hon. Friend's answer will be heard throughout the country. Does he agree that the figures underline yet again the fact that Russia is spending 50 per cent. more in real terms than the United States on its defence budget? Does he further agree that the imbalance in nuclear weaponry in Europe is the main cause of the sense of insecurity? Does he agree also that the best service that Mr. Andropov can do, if he is in good faith about reducing tension, is to enter into serious negotiations on President Reagan's zero option proposal?

I agree entirely that Russia is spending a much higher percentage of its GDP on defence than is the United States or any other Western country. I am sure that the zero option, meaning that there should be none of these missiles on either side, is the best proposal. I cannot understand why some people seem to have the idea that no Pershing and no cruise but some SS20s is better than the zero option.

Is not Mr. Bush's offer identical to the zero option?

No. It is quite different.

Is it not therefore a non-starter? Is it not correct that all the British and French submarine missiles would still remain, as would the British and American bombers at Lakenheath and throughout the country?

The United States has made it clear that it will be prepared to consider other proposals by the Soviet Union. The British and French strategic nuclear deterrents are not included in the INF negotiations. They are strategic missiles, as the Soviet Union recognised in the SALT I negotiations. What is more, if we were to exclude all American intermediate range land-based nuclear forces from Europe, we would frustrate the whole purpose of the 1979 twin track decision, which was to demonstrate American commitment to the defence of Europe in the face of the enormous Soviet intermediate build-up. We would leave the Soviet Union with a monopoly of land-based intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe.

On the nuclear arms issue, will my hon. Friend remind the House and the country that the campaign for unilateralism being fought by the CND and the Labour party is constantly weakening the West's negotiating position in Geneva?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Furthermore, the reason why the Soviet Union is at last prepared to put forward some proposals, even if they are not satisfactory, is that the West has shown itself resolute and united in pursuing a policy of bringing in the cruise and Pershing missiles in the absence of a satisfactory agreement.

The Minister said that the British Polaris—the independent nuclear deterrent—was not included in the intermediate range talks because it is a strategic weapon. Does that mean that it will be included in the strategic arms reduction talks?

No, Sir. That has also been made clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the effect on United Kingdom defence policy of the Russian proposal for a non-aggression pact.

No changes are planned in the Government's defence policy, but we are carefully studying the Warsaw Pact proposals, including that for a treaty on the mutual non-use of force. NATO is already fully and publicly committed to the non-use of force except in self-defence. Any treaty could not, of course, be a substitute for real progress toward a general reduction in the level of armaments. We await a constructive response to the radical proposals that have been put forward by NATO.

The soft words pouring out of the Kremlin make good propaganda, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deeds, not words, that count? In view of the ruthless extermination of freedom in the countries of eastern Europe—Hungary, East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia—and in Afghanistan, practised by the Soviet Union for the past 40 years, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is deeds not words that count when it comes to entering upon any of these negotiations?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful question. It explains a background that has meant that, since the war, we in this country have been determined to maintain a credible deterrent in favour of peace and that all parties, up to and including this Government, have seen the ability of the Western world to deter the Soviet Union as the single most important guarantee of peace on offer.

May I first wish the right hon. Gentleman an enjoyable, if abbreviated, tenure of office? How does he consider that the United Kingdom's possession of nuclear weapons enables it to take part in the peace negotiations for the general reduction in nuclear arms about which he spoke when our possession of those nuclear weapons does not allow us even into the negotiating chamber?

I presume that the right hon. Gentleman, as a leading member of the previous Government, explored all these relative advantages and arguments and that he decided that the nature of the Western Alliance was such, and has been such since the 1940s, that Britain, under Labour or Conservative Governments, believed itself to be a fully integrated member of the Alliance and of the negotiating posture of the West.

The right hon. Gentleman believes, does he not, that the United Kingdom has no place in the negotiating chamber and wishes to leave the matter entirely to the United States?

The position is the same as that which existed under the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported. If it was so profoundly unsatisfactory, why did he not change it?

Mr. Nicholas Lyell.

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

The position is the same.

Order. Will the Front Benches be as self-restrained as the rest of the House?

I revert to the question of non-aggression. While one would welcome any genuine moves in that direction from the Soviet Union, might it not make a major start by reducing the 19,000 battle tanks that it seeks to keep on the borders between Western and Eastern Europe, which compares with 6,000 or 7,000 in NATO?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that question. He will be aware that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact enjoy a superiority not simply in tanks. That superiority exists in many of the conventional forces of eastern European countries. It is precisely because of that, and precisely because the eastern European countries did not reduce their conventional forces after 1945 whereas the West did that it was necessary for us to form the NATO Alliance in the first place.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list the United States nuclear bases in Great Britain.

There is a facility for United States Poseidon submarines at Holy Loch, and United States aircraft with a nuclear as well as a conventional capability are based at two RAF stations in the United Kingdom. It is not the practice either to confirm or deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any particular location.

Are the Government prepared to include a list of these bases in any advertisements that they may take relating to the nuclear disarmament debate? Does he not agree that the anxiety of members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, is understandable and that we cannot discover from the Government any information about where the nuclear arms are held or what sort of danger they represent to the nation?

It has been the policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence or absence of muclear weapons at any particular location. That was the policy of Labour Governments.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these bases are the ultimate guarantee of our security and that we would be much more vulnerable were the United States deterrent to be wielded on our behalf without there being such bases in the United Kingdom?

I entirely agree that they are the guarantee of our liberty and have been ever since they have been here with the consent of Governments of both parties. I was interested to see that in a recent public opinion poll the majority of Labour voters supported the retention of United States bases in this country.

Does the Minister agree that many of those bases, not just in Great Britain but in Europe, are the consequence of NATO's first use of nuclear weapons doctrine? Rather than trying to market the bomb, would it not be better for the Government to conduct a campaign within NATO to move away from first use to no first use of nuclear weapons? Many of those bases would not then be necessary.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's premise. We have a better policy, which is no first use of any weapons. A doctrine or statement from the Soviet Union about no first us of nuclear weapons would be entirely unverifiable. It is not one upon which I should recommend we rely, since the Soviet Union has breached so many of its undertakings in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will set out in detail the arrangements regarding the use of cruise missiles referred to in the answer of 14 December, Official Report, c. 124; and whether, in the light of developments in the negotiations for multilateral disarmament, he will review these arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the precise method of dual-key control for cruise missiles.

The use by United States forces of bases in this country in an emergency—including those bases to which cruise missiles will be deployed in the absence of concrete results from the arms control negotiations in Geneva—would be a matter for joint decision between the two Governments in the light of circumstances at the time. The Government have satisfied themselves that these arrangements, which have existed for nearly 30 years and have been supported by successive Governments, remain fully effective.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his full answer, but does he agree that while the vast majority of British people want us to have an independent nuclear deterrent, they are anxious at the prospect of such a deterrent, based on British soil, not being under sovereign British control? Will he therefore make the public as fully aware of the facts as possible and deal with this anxiety throughout the year with all his usual diplomacy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I hope that I have made it absolutely clear that the bases from which nuclear weapons could be deployed would not be used except by the joint decision of the American and British Governments. The decision would be taken in the light of circumstances—

"In the light of circumstances" can mean anything.

—prevailing at the time.

What about consultation?

There is no reference to consultation in the decision-taking process. Mr. Speaker, although the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) did not ask the original question, I accept, and everyone understands, that this is a matter of massive national interest. If it will help the House I shall read briefly from the arrangements that exist between this country and the United States. They were the arrangements that were discussed earlier between Mr. Attlee and Mr. Truman and later between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Truman. The communiqué was issued in January 1952 in the following terms:

"Under arrangements made for the common defence, the United States has the use of certain bases in the United Kingdom. We reaffirm the understanding that the use of these bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in the light of circumstances at the time."

Whatever the merits of the arrangements that the Secretary of State has just read to the House, why does he not believe that dual control would be better?

It is not a matter of dogma or theology. The offer was discussed between the United States and the countries of Europe when the decisions to deploy cruise and Pershing misslies were taken. The offer of a dual key was available. The Governments of Europe took their respective views. I can speak specifically only for the way in which this Government took their decision. Our view was that in the light of the experience of the arrangements to which I have referred, over a significant period of time and under Governments of both parties, there was no case for the additional strain on the defence budget that would have been imposed by buying the cruise platform systems when they would be fully protected under the arrangements that were on offer.

Are not the arrangements that were formulated some 30 years ago for sub-sonic aircraft and free-fall bombs wholly inappropriate for dispersed missiles with electronic triggers and targeting? The sooner my right hon. Friend starts making arrangements to return control of the missiles to Britons answerable to the Crown and the House, the better.

I understand fully the depth of feeling that exists on this issue. It might help my hon. Friend to understand that the arrangements governing the use of the bases would come into effect much sooner than the decisions to use weapons in the context in which my hon. Friend describes the rather delicate electronic machinery for firing the weapons.

Does the Secretary of State not get the point that the agreement reached a long time ago was about bases and not about the cruise missile, which is wholly different from the original weapons? If this missile were fired, which God forbid, Britain could then expect massive nuclear retaliation. Does the Secretary of State not owe it to the British people to have proper physical control over the firing of the missile?

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that there has always been an understanding that the Soviets could conceivably use Great Britain as a target. We are anxious about the number of Soviet weapons systems targeted on Western Europe today, and that is why we consider it necessary to have the deterrent effect of the dispersal of the cruise and Pershing missiles.

rose—

Order. We shall return to this question later.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards widows of ex-service men whose husbands died after service where they could have suffered from the consequences of the testing of nuclear weapons.

Were the Department of Health and Social Security to accept that death arose from causes related to service, it would award a war widow's pension; and if the Ministry of Defence also accepted that death arose from such causes, provided the husband served on or after 31 March 1973, an attributable widow's pension would be awarded.

Is the Minister aware that there are cases in which the DHSS has accepted that death was caused by contact with nuclear weapons when they were tested, but that the Ministry of Defence has refused to accept that? Now that we have a new Secretary of State for Defence, will he show some compassion towards widows of ex-service men who died because they were in an area where nuclear weapons were tested? Is he aware that many of those widows fear that the Ministry of Defence is refusing to accept its responsibilities because it does not wish the British people to know about the horrific consequences of nuclear weapons, even when they are being tested in a controlled manner.

In one case there is a disparity of view between the two Departments. The reasons for the success of the lady's appeal was purely legal. As to medical evidence, my Department does not accept that the death of the person was due in any way to the causes suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

As the Ministry of Defence has said categorically that safety precautions at the time were more than adequate to preclude health risks, is it not the case that Ministers have prejudged the issue and that what we need now is an independent assessment of the entire position?

In the case that has been mentioned, we must, as must all Ministers, bow to the advice given to us by our medical advisers. In this case the medical advisers were in no doubt. On the more general question, the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is another question to be answered soon by my hon. Friend.

Yes, mine. No. 15.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's independent military space programme.

The United Kingdom's military space requirements are primarily for communications and navigation technology. They are formulated wherever possible in co-ordination with our NATO allies, with whom we assess the military implications of developments in space technology.

Is it intended to replace the independent military satellite Skynet 2B, which turned out to be unreliable during the Falklands operation, with another independent British satellite, or is it intended to rely on the United States or NATO?

The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that the British Aerospace Dynamics Group in his constituency, and Marconi Space and Defence Systems Ltd., are co-operating on Skynet 4, which is expected to provide the satellite communications that we need between 1985 and 1990.

Will my hon. Friend consider consulting much more with the French on space matters, especially on the possibility of adopting an Anglo-French reconnaissance capability and, secondly, to support a booster beyond Ariane 4?

We are always prepared to consult the French on such matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of the fall in the value of the £ sterling, what is the current estimate of the foreign exchange cost of Trident.

It is still about 45 per cent. of the total.

I find the figure rather breathtaking. When one considers the Serpell report, one realises that with that sum of money the railway lines from Manchester to London could be coated in gold plate. Is it now safe enough to presume that, by the time Trident is delivered, it will probably cost about £10 billion? As we have thousands of homeless, could we not build 500,000 houses instead of having this terrible, wicked waste on an unnecessary weapon?

I understood the hon. Gentleman to forecast a serious escalation in the estimated cost of the system. It is noteworthy that the first change to be announced in the cost of £7,500 million was a significant decrease resulting from the plans for servicing in the United State of America. I see no reason to expect the estimates to be seriously exceeded. The original Polaris programme did not exceed its budget. The Trident D5 missile is a fourth generation missile, and the others have kept to their budgets.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the present cost of Trident, during its lifetime it will be the most inexpensive piece of equipment that the military will have, because it can inflict damage that no other equipment could at that price and, therefore, will be a deterrent?

I agree with my hon. Friend that Trident will be very good value for money. When the Polaris system ceases to be effective at some time in the 1990s, if we are to continue to have a nuclear deterrent, Trident is without doubt the best value. Its full-life cost will be about 12p per head of the population per week, which is slightly less than the cost of a second-class postage stamp.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recent fall in sterling has added £750 million to the cost of Trident, which is a 7 per cent. increase in real terms? Does that not show that the cost of Trident is completely outside the Government's control, and does it not put a further squeeze on the budget for conventional weapons? Does not such a squeeze weaken the nation's defences?

I said in my original answer that I estimated the foreign exchange costs of Trident to be still about 45 per cent. of the total. The increase resulting from the fall in sterling is offset by other changes in the detailed make-up of the Trident costing.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, during dispersals of cruise missile launchers, for practices or during an alert, they will use sites under public or private ownership; and if under private ownership, whether permission of the private owners will be negotiated.

Practice peace time dispersals of cruise missile launchers will use public roads and Ministry of Defence land. It is not in the interests of security to comment on dispersals in times of tension or war.

Does the Minister appreciate that the vast majority of people in Britain do not want cruise missiles anywhere and that they will be especially alarmed at the thought that the missiles will be moved along public roads and deployed on small corners of land up and down the country? When that takes place there will be many demonstrations around those sites, which will cause much difficulty to the programme. Would it not be a good idea to cancel the whole system here and now?

I have learnt from recent public opinion polls that a large majority of British people support our independent strategic nuclear deterrent and oppose a policy of one-sided disarmament by the Government. Those figures include a majority of Labour voters in each case. As I said, in peace time the deployments will be on Ministry of Defence land.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be as reassuring to the populace of Britain to see cruise missile launchers being moved around the countryside as it is now to see ships at sea or aeroplanes in the air or ordinary military convoys? Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is just as important to have those missiles to defend our freedom as it is to have an independent nuclear deterrent?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cruise missiles will be brought here, in the absence of agreement to reduce them at the negotiations in Geneva, at the request of the European countries. They are not being imposed on us by the Americans. There is much misinformation about cruise missiles, which accounts for some of the anxiety to which my right hon. Friend referred. It is our purpose to put right the information. It has been alleged, for example, by the CND that the missiles would be used for a first strike. That is totally untrue. It is impossible to use them for that purpose.

Does not the Minister of State's first reply show how irrelevant was the reply of the Secretary of State for Defence to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)? As we are talking about roads, what relevance do the bases have? The fact of the matter is that Britain has no control over the cruise missiles, whatever the truth may be about the bases.

My right hon. Friend has dealt carefully, fairly and explicitly with the question of control and I have nothing to add.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the survey that he intends to carry out of those British service men who were involved in the Christmas Island nuclear weapon tests in the 1950s.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will appoint an independent body to investigate fully the number of deaths from cancer resulting from the A-bomb and H-bomb tests on Christmas Island in the 1950s.

The Ministry of Defence announced on 12 January 1983 that it would commission a health survey of British personnel who took part in the Australian and Christmas Island atmospheric test programmes in the 1950s. Independent radiological protection authorities will participate fully in this survey. The survey is being designed to establish whether the incidence of radiation-associated diseases amongst those who participated in the tests is significantly different from that for a comparable body of men not involved in nuclear testing. It will be conducted on the basis of information already accessible to the Government. It is intended that the results of the survey will be published.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Peter de Ionno of the Western Daily Press, whose highly successful investigative journalism has stimulated public debate on this issue? Does he agree that this investigation should take place under the auspices of the Department of Health and Social Security in order to maintain strict impartiality and that, perhaps, a special team from one of our leading universities should be appointed to look into the medical records of those who took part in the tests and those who have died since?

I do not think that this is a matter for the DHSS, although it will obviously be closely involved in the study as it develops. We have a nominal list of all service and civilian test personnel, but we must make a considerable analysis of that first to be able to provide the full data to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which is the body that will conduct the preliminary investigation.

Will the Minister ensure that that independent inquiry will not take too long in view of the dire circumstances in which many of the people affected are living, in particular those widows whose husbands have lost their lives through cancer as a result, they would argue—I agree with them—of being present on Christmas Island during the tests? Is the Minister aware that one of the most important factors in deciding industrial benefits of any kind—disablement benefit, war pensions, and industrial death benefits for widows—is whether the person concerned was there as a result of his or her employment and in this case they were there acting on behalf of the state—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman was proceding to an argument in support of his question.

No.

That was my judgment.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I understood his point, despite the length at which it was made. There will be no unnecessary prolongation of this, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that although he supports the fact that the presence of those people in the South Pacific at the time the tests took place must have been the cause of their cancer, we must see whether we can establish that that was the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how he compiled the list of firms which were invited to tender for the provision of fishing tackle to Her Majesty's forces in the Falkland Islands.

Since the purchase of the fishing tackle was made from non-public welfare funds the Ministry of Defence has no involvement with the transaction. I understand, however, that the military staff in the Falklands selected the range of firms they approached from their own knowledge and from specialist publications.

Why does not the Ministry of Defence buy British? Why was one of the best-known British manufacturing firms—Hardy' s of Alnwick—not included in the list?

The answer to that is in the reply that I have already given. The equipment was bought with welfare funds because that procedure could be followed more quickly in order to get fishing tackle to the troops in the Falklands for recreation purposes.

Was any of this fishing equipment made available to the unofficial president's fund of the Queen's Own Highlanders, then commanded by Lieutenant Col. Ridley at Goose Green, East Falklands? If so, at what price was it made available to the fund and at what price was it made available to the non-commissioned ranks? There is a great deal of information to the effect that that fund was grossly overcharging non-commissioned troops stationed there for airmail letters, beer and cigarettes, in some cases more than 250 per cent. above local charges. Will the hon. Gentleman now issue proper guidelines for the composition—[Interruption.]—management, and prices and profit margins of such regimental funds—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.

The Minister has as well.

Order. If the hon. Gentleman shouts at me like that again I shall ask him to leave the Chamber.

rose—

Order. Let the Minister reply.

As I have already explained, the funds with which this equipment was bought were provided out of welfare funds and are, therefore, not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. The welfare funds were at the discretion of the commander of the British Forces on the Falkland Islands, and if the hon. Gentleman wants more information I suggest he communicates with him.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will my right hon. Friend today urge the water workers, when they come to consider whether to call off their strike, to remember that their present action is putting at risk the jobs of many other workers who have accepted pay settlements well below that currently on offer?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many people with less secure jobs who would envy the offer that has already been made to the water workers and there are many, many, unemployed people who would like to have similar pay to that which has been offered to the water workers—£145 to £146 a week. As that offer was made as a result of mediation, I hope that the water workers will soon take wiser counsel than they have previously, and return to work. I notice that a MORI poll has just come out which shows that 75 per cent. of the population believe that the water workers should accept the offer that has been made.

Has the Prime Minister studied the CBI industrial trends survey, which was published this morning? If so, has she noted that investment in manufacturing industries is expected to decline next year as well? Therefore, will she gear her Budget strategy to investment in industry?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there were many years when the rising standard of living through wages was at the expense of money that should have gone into investment. That is one of the problems that we now have. There will be a substantial increase in investment in, for example, consumer goods industries, only when there is an increase in consumer expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed from that survey that there are signs of increased demand and activity among some industries producing consumer goods. There is also considerable optimism about exports. There are excellent figures for exports and some good figures that augur well for low inflation in future.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the reported remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury last week, to the effect that it would never be just to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack? Does she agree that if a potential enemy is told that weapons will never be used in retaliation, the enemy will never be convinced of one's determination to resist?

Without making any comment on the remarks of His Grace, for which I am not responsible, I agree with my hon. Friend that the point of having nuclear weapons is to deter a war of any kind. They have succeeded in doing so for the past 37 years. To be an effective deterrent a potential aggressor must believe that under certain circumstances such weapons will be used.

If the right hon. Lady thinks that she has a good case, why is she not content to put it to the country instead of suggesting that public money should be used to support it? It has been suggested in the newspapers that the right hon. Lady supports the idea of spending £1 million to support Conservative party propaganda. Will she take this opportunity to repudiate that? If sums of that kind are available for propaganda, why have the Government refused to spend a single penny in supporting the world disarmament campaign, agreed on in the special session of the United Nations—a campaign which she alleged she would support?

With regard to the reports about an advertising campaign, no decision has been made, but I note that there is a very effective precedent, which was followed in 1969, when the NATO policy, which involved nuclear deterrents and Polaris, was put across. People were urged with full-length advertisements in the papers to write for booklets that would give them full details about NATO and Polaris. That campaign in 1969 cost the equivalent of £1 million today.

If the right hon. Lady is to embark on these campaigns, will she make some effort to see that she tells the truth? [HON MEMBERS: "Oh".] She gave the House, and perhaps the country, the impression that her Government had been backing proposals for multilateral disarmament. Will she put in one of the advertisements, or in Hansard, a list of the occasions, at the end of last year, when she voted at the United Nations against proposals for multilateral disarmament and when this Government were in a minority of one, two or three in voting against proposals for disarmament? If she wishes to tell the truth to the country she should tell it that.

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's recommendation that we should put out certain information in advertisements. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will have taken his advice into account on that matter. I shall make certain that if any record is published about votes in the United Nations, the full resolution is published, together with the reason for voting. We are a party that believes in multilateral disarmament as being the only disarmament that has to be on a balanced and verifiable basis.

In direct response to that point, if the right hon. Lady is to use public money to put her case, we shall demand public money to put our case, as we have not the slightest confidence that the right hon. Lady will tell the truth to the country on this subject.

The right hon. Gentleman's Government in 1969 used public money to put the NATO case to the country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some water workers in my constituency came to see me on Saturday—[HON. MEMBERS: "What a drip".]—to complain about the so-called democratic process within their union? Is she further aware that they told me that they were prevented from taking part in the second ballot because they could not get to their places of work due to the pickets? The only workers who voted in the second ballot were those who were on the pickets, who are, by definition, against the offer. As this makes nonsense of the water workers' claim to have a 4:1 majority in favour of continuing the strike, will she take urgent steps to introduce proper, democratic processes?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment put out a discussion document on these matters. I hope that the water workers will consider the offer that has been made through mediation. In May 1979 the average pay of the water worker was £88·70. Before the dispute started, the average was £136·90. They have now been offered £146 on average. That is an increase of 64 per cent. since May 1979, when the retail price index has gone up by only 52 per cent.

In the talks that are taking place between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Irish Foreign Minister, will the Prime Minister confirm that nothing will be said on the British side that is inconsistent with her principle that the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland are exclusively a matter for this House and the people of the Province?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that constitutional changes, if such there be, in Northern Ireland are for the people of Northern Ireland and for the House of Commons and the other part of Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister explain the difference between the zero option, from which she is apparently moving, and President Reagan's latest offer to Mr. Andropov?

I understand that the latest offer reaffirms the zero option which, let us be clear, is the best possible option, because it does away with all nuclear weapons of a particular class. Before that offer was made there was the NATO double track decision, which, in the absence of the zero option, is based on equal numbers and proper counting.

Will my right hon. Friend, within the nuclear debate, make it clear that if cruise missiles are to be based in this country they will be fired only after joint consultations between this Government and the American Government, thus making it clear that it is a decision for both Governments?

The phrase goes further than "joint consultations." The phrase on the use of those bases refers to a "joint decision", which means a decision of both Governments after consultation.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the 1969 advertisements, apart from the broad consensus on the issue that then existed, were almost entirely factual reports, not a propaganda campaign of the type that appeared to be envisaged in the reports yesterday? In view of the spate of adverse editorial and political comment, does she accept that those who wish to contravert unilateral disarmament, which I do as strongly as she, could do it better by political arguments than by spending taxpayers' money subsidising advertisements?

The right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time when money was spent on those advertisements. The policy in support of NATO was won. The vast majority of people at the moment are in support of NATO and of multilateral disarmament. We stand by both. I am somewhat amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should say that all members of the party to which he then belonged were in favour of Polaris. If that is so, I cannot think why it later held up any publicity on the modernisation of Polaris with Chevaline.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Does the right hon. Lady understand that her remarks in this Chamber on the water industry dispute have been exceedingly unhelpful? Taking examples of average earnings is always dodgy, especially if related to the Members of the House. With regard to the right hon. Lady's remarks last Thursday, may I point out that the report of a mediator connected with ACAS is not holy writ, as evidenced by the recent decision of the Department of Defence, when the Government turned down a mediator's proposal in the dispute with the Transport and General Workers Union?

I am sorry that the facts get in the hon. Gentleman's way, as that is virtually all that I have given him in connection with this dispute.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am correct in saying that on occasions you, with the Leader of the House and what are known as the usual channels, discuss the procedure of the House. Next time that happens, will you consider the possibility that Privy Councillors should have their own time to put questions to the Prime Minister, and not keep muscling in by taking up two-thirds, if not 90 per cent., of the time that should be for Back Benchers, who take the trouble to table questions? Privy Councillors enter the Chanber just before the Prime Minister gets to her feet.

Order. I always listen with the utmost respect to what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) says. I have no doubt that Privy Councillors will do the same.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could hon. Members be selected to ask questions during Prime Minister's Question Time on the basis of those whose questions are among the first 10 or 12 on the Order Paper by virtue of random selection? It would work out perfectly fairly and would prevent the invidious accusations that Privy Councillors receive more opportunities than other Members, as we are all elected on an absolutely fair and equal basis.

Order. This gives me an opportunity to say that I shall call a conference of the various parties to consider the outrageous way in which Prime Minister's Question Time is being ruined. I honestly believe that the open question has changed the character of Question Time. I welcome a conference. I shall now call the respective parties to my House to discuss how to get over this.