asked the Minister of State for Defence why the teaching of languages has been discontinued at the Royal Military Academy.

Language training is still available for those who stay on at Sandhurst and need it to prepare for university degree courses. It is preferable that young officers generally should concentrate during the limited amount of time available for initial academic training on subjects which are professionally essential to them. A wide variety of language training facilities will continue to be available as part of an officer's further education after leaving Sandhurst.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, which is somewhat reassuring. It seems to be a strange time to discontinue language teaching just when we have entered the Community.

I assure my hon. Friend that the new arrangements do not reflect any lessening of the importance that the Army attaches to the study of languages. They concern only the initial stages of training. Language training for officers will be one of the subjects to be studied by the independent committee set up by my right hon. Friend to review the education of officers.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that advertisements for the Army are written in the English language?

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will list the research establishments under his control which have undertaken civil research work.

They are the Royal Aircraft Establishment, the National Gas Turbine Establishment, the Royal Radar Establishment, the Rocket Propulsion Establishment, the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment, the Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment, the Chemical Defence Establishment and the Microbiological Research Establishment.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but he seems to have omitted the Naval Construction Research Establishment at Dunfermline and Rosyth which I understand has undertaken civil research work. In pursuit of his duties, will the hon. Gentleman try to persuade the Naval Construction Research Establishment to undertaken work in relation to underwater technology and vetting the stress work on production rigs and platforms for the North Sea?

As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the primary object of defence establishments is to do work connected with the defence programme, but when there is spare capacity they are glad to undertake work on civil projects.

Is the policy to second civil servants to defence establishments intended to assist in the practical application as well as the original research and development?

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, most establishments are staffed by civil servants.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what proportion of the gross national product will be directed to military expenditure after including the 5 per cent. increase in real terms recently announced; what is the average proportion of other European NATO Governments; and how much money would be saved annually if Great Britain reduced to their average level.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a similar question from the hon. Member on 1st February.—[Vol. 849, c. 448–49.]

Will the Minister confirm the reply given by his predecessor that if we reduced the share of the GNP we devote to armaments from 5·7 to 4·2 per cent.—the average for our European NATO allies—£600 million a year would be saved? Why should we spend more than any other European country? Would it not be wiser to cut back our expenditure rather than to incur the huge increase which we shall incur tomorrow?

The exact figures will appear tomorrow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not spend more on defence than do the Germans. If we were to reduce expenditure, whereas there would be considerable savings in money there would also be considerable unemployment, particularly in the hon. Gentleman's area.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that if the figure of £600 million is correct, it is a small price to pay for a continuing contribution to the freedom of this country?

Of course, and it is obviously much more sensible to determine our defence expenditure not by what our allies do but by what our potential opponents do.

Does the Minister agree that the NATO Powers generally are spending less money than are the Warsaw Pact countries, and that the Warsaw Pact countries continue to have a considerable preponderance in manpower and in all conventional weapons?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. There is a preponderance of force on behalf of the Warsaw Pact in Europe.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will reaffirm that it is his policy to equip the Armed Forces with British made weapons and materials to the greatest possible extent.

Yes, Sir. It is Government policy as far as is practicable to procure defence equipment from British sources or in collaboration with our allies.

I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend put this policy into effect in terms of the new helicopter missile and will he do his utmost to see that the substantial orders for this equipment are passed on to BAC for its Hawkswing missile?

I have already given the House the general policy. All I can tell my hon. Friend is that the Hawkswing project is developing normally, but no final decision on this or any other project has finally been taken.

Are we to equip ourselves with the Poseidon and has a decision been taken about that? If so, may I congratulate the Government on strengthening the Anglo-American alliance?

That is a different question and I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week.

Is the Minister aware that the following item appears in today's Guardian:

"The French Defence Minister, M. Debré, has confirmed that the decision of the British Government to buy its second generation nuclear weapons from the United States has made impossible a common British-French defence policy"?

It is not for me to confirm or deny what appears in the French Press or what the French Minister of Defence says, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows there are two other Questions on this subject on today's Order Paper.

asked the Minister of State for Defence when he expects to announce the results of the review of pension and gratuity arrangements for military casualties in Northern Ireland and their dependants.

Our general review of pension arrangements, including the benefits payable for injury or death attributable to service, is making good progress, but I am not yet ready to make a statement.

In view of the time that has elapsed during the review, does my hon. Friend intend to endorse and confirm yet again that he and his colleagues will provide the most generous possible compensation by gratuities, lump sum payments or pensions to the widows and families of those killed or injured in Northern Ireland?

Of course I hope, as did my predecessor, that we shall be able to announce a good, fair and generous scheme for these people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should pay tribute to the Lord Mayor of Belfast's fund which, following casualties in my regiment, has provided instant and generous donations?

Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Will the Minister make it quite clear that we should give assistance to dependants who seek compensation from the Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Board? It strikes me as unjust that people who have sustained bereavement in Northern Ireland have to go through the normal civil procedure without adequate assistance from the military authorities.

The hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair. Under the present procedure many of the dependants whose husbands have been killed have done quite well out of it and we provide assistance.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he is aware that the Royal Radar Establishment at Malvern, Worcestershire, have now reactivated low-level flying tests, which prove detrimental in this area of amenity value and natural beauty; and whether he will direct such tests to cease forthwith, having regard to the rejection by ministerial staff of previous local complaints concerning the noise and loss of home comfort.

There has been no significant change during recent years in the flying activities of the Royal Radar Establishment, Malvern, which are in any case only occasionally carried out at low level. There is, however, a considerable amount of RAF low-level training activity in the general area. This, as my hon. Friend will know, is essential to defence needs and must continue, though every effort is made to minimise the disturbance caused.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that this is an area of special amenity and scenic value, is widely recognised as such and is closely protected by the Department of the Environment? Does he not appreciate that these constant depredations of the environment by his Department, both on the part of the Royal Air Force aerobatics team from Little Rissington and from the Royal Radar Establishment, are having very damaging effects on local residents? Can he improve the situation by inquiring further into the matter?

One is prepared to inquire further into the matter, but the truth is that areas of scenic beauty and natural wildness are the most suitable for low-level flying.

Would it not be possible to redirect these aircraft over Broadway?

asked the Minister of State for Defence what additional financial provision he proposes to make for the defence Gibraltar in 1973, over and that made in 1972.

I cannot answer questions on defence expenditure for 1973 in advance of the publication of the White Paper.

When the Minister considers this expenditure, will he bear in mind the increasing hardship caused to the citizens of Gibraltar by the continued closure of the Spanish border? Will he further bear in mind the fact that the citizens of Gibraltar feel that on the whole they have been very poorly treated when comparison is made, for example, with the treatment accorded to the people of Malta who are infinitely more militant?

I have recently visited Gibraltar and I did not come away with that impression. Perhaps these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary rather than for me.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what action he is taking to ensure that the Royal Army Medical Corps Museum at Aldershot, containing the Florence Nightingale relics, is adequately housed for inspection by the public and protected from the hazard of fire.

We are planning to rehouse the museum as part of the rebuilding of the Royal Army Medical Corps Training Centre at Mytchett. Meanwhile suitable precautions are taken against fire in the existing building.

In view of the wide interest in this museum, will my hon. Friend look at the possibility of housing at least part of this collection in the Imperial War Museum, or even in the new part of St. Thomas' Hospital?

I note my hon. Friend's point, but we must bear in mind that the Florence Nightingale relics are RAMC relics and it is right that they should remain in the corps museum where they are accessible to more members of the corps than if they were elsewhere.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will invite by public announcement on television and other media all persons awarded the Military Medal prior to September 1939 to register with his Department.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that this question has now become rather jaded and that it is not a political matter —because the answer we have received today is the same as that given by the previous Government, and the answer given by the previous Government was the same as we received from the Government before that. Is he aware that, compared with the total of defence expenditure, the price of dignity for this nation is a paltry few pounds? To give these men £20 a year to buy a new suit to wear at the armistice celebrations would not bankrupt us, and probably the fact that we are treating our people like this has a lot to do with why we are spending less than the Warsaw Pact countries on defence.

I do not accept the implication of the last part of that supplementary question. The facts are that when it was decided in 1945 to extend the gratuity of £20 to those who won the medal in the 1939–45 war the decision was then taken that the award could not be back-dated beyond that. One reason was that it would have been impracticable to trace all the 116,000 people who were awarded the medal in the 1914–18 war. If that was the decision at that time, it is difficult to see how, 28 years later, one could reverse it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the gaining of a decoration of this sort lies in the honour and not in the financial reward?

I entirely agree with that valid comment.

I am completely dissatisfied with the Minister's reasons for rejecting this request. We now have a medium which was not available in those days, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to consider finding out what is the total cost to the nation involved in buying dignity and giving to people who served this country in the 1914–18 war the same rewards as those who served us in the Second World War.

The total cost, so far as can be estimated, would be about £450,000 for the gratuities, plus £130,000 a year for those who would receive an addition to their pension. But that is not the point. The point is that this is not a practicable suggestion. It is more complicated than the hon. Gentleman seems to realise because also involved would be the question whether the award would be paid as it was for those who died in the 1939–45 war, namely to the heirs of those who have won the medal.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make available to interested parties the Leitch Report.

The report of the internal working party on fuses contains a good deal of commercially confidential information and cannot be distributed outside Government circles.

Is the Minister aware that his reply will cause considerable disappointment among the executives of the firm in my constituency which is concerned with this matter, because it will be difficult for them to plan their future operations since they do not have sufficient knowledge of the Government's intentions? Will he consider at least assisting the employment situation in my constituency by making sure that my constituents may be a little more certain about their future by letting the firm have certain information to assist in forward planning?

I am aware of the interest of the firm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As my hon. Friend told the House on 1st February, a decision on the future of fuse development and production will be announced shortly.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what progress has been made towards the agreement on common operational requirements for weapons systems in Western Europe.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what progress is being made in the standardisation of defence equipment for European NATO countries.

We and our allies have undertaken to launch no major new equipment programmes without determined efforts to agree common requirements and co-operative procurement. A number of projects, still at the formative stage, are under discussion and in some cases an important measure of agreement has already been reached with our European allies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if Europe is to become capable of defending itself independently and at reasonable cost, a common requirements system is an absolute necessity? Will he lose no opportunity to make it plain to our Armed Services that they should think seriously about whether they will get any of the equipment they want unless they can agree upon common operational requirements?

I would largely agree with my hon. Friend, as will the Services, because, faced with increasing costs and shorter production runs, it is obviously not only sensible but essential to increase collaboration among allies.

What thought has been given, for example, to successes of the Chieftain tank in this country and the Leopard in Germany? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the major stumbling blocks has been the difference in philosophy in this country on armaments and in Germany on mobility? Will he ensure that the general staff, certainly in this country, are made deeply aware that there will be a strict limitation of the money that is available unless they come to terms with the operational requirements of other countries in Europe?

The right hon. Gentle man is perfectly right. There have been differences of approach on various equipments between us and other countries. But the general staff and other staffs do not need any telling that collaboration is the best way of securing these equipments in the future, and they are well aware of this.

Does my hon. Friend realise that with such collaboration it might take even longer to get equipment and that if it takes even longer to get something like the Harrier we shall never get it at all?

Collaboration has its snags and disadvantages, but they are nothing like as great as the advantages to be gained from it.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the results of his recent discussions with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand concerning the five-Power ANZUK force.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Australia of the Secretary of State for Defence.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had useful discussions with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand on a number of topics, including political and defence problems in South-East Asia. These Governments confirmed their intention of honouring the terms of the five-Power defence arrangements so long as Malaysia and Singapore wish them to continue. The Australian Government intend to withdraw their battalion and battery from the ANZUK Brigade at about the end of this year; but the New Zealand Government intend to maintain their present contribution, and my right hon. and noble Friend confirmed that Britain will also continue to do so. The detailed implications of the Australian decision for the ANZUK Brigade will now be worked out in consultation, as necessary, between all the partners in the five-Power arrangements.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House on two points: first that the Government really intend to continue the firmest possible defence links with Australia and New Zealand, and secondly that the Government continue to realise the importance of peacekeeping forces in the area east of Suez?

I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend. I think that both of those points were implicit in my original answer.

Is not a rather odd situation created when the Australians withdraw a major battalion, which is a major factor of the ground forces in Singapore and Malaysia? What really is left then of the command structure headed by an Australian admiral? Will that continue? Is not the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Defence seemed to be surprised when he was told that the Australians were keeping only 600 supply troops in Singapore after the end of this year, and will not this so-called five-Power agreement be as dead as the dodo within 18 months?

I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has always had this strong prejudice against the five-Power agreement. I should have thought that so long as Malaysia and Singapore want the agreement to continue, it is in their interests and in the interests of this country that it should continue.

Is not a very major part of the Australian contribution the air defence element at Butterworth? So lona as they maintain their Mirage squadrons there, will not that continue?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and they have every intention of keeping their squadrons there.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the cost of replacing Great Britain's Polaris missiles with the American built Poseidon system.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the British nuclear deterrent.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States of America on British acquisition of the Poseidon missile.

I have nothing to add to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Members for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), and Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 6th February.—[Vol. 850, c. 221, 223.]

In view of the huge cost of equipping our four submarines, which is estimated at over £250 million, will the Minister resist the pressure from the Royal Navy for Poseidon? Is not the best defence for the enlarged Community to have strong conventional forces and for Britain and France to phase out their nuclear deterrents?

I certainly do not agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The two things are not mutually exclusive. As to the first part, as my right hon. Friend said the other day, maintaining the effectiveness of the Polaris forces is a continuing process.

Without considering the possibility of acquiring the Poseidon systerm, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of jumping a generation of weapons and discussing with the Americans the possible acquisiton of the Trident system?

No decision has been taken. We do not make announcements on particular equipments that are under consideration. My hon. Friend will not expect me to go into detail on this matter.

What exactly does the Minister mean by saying that "the two things are not mutually exclusive"?

The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) appeared to imply that either we had nuclear forces or we had effective conventional forces in Europe, and I was saying that it was right to have both.

As my right hon. Friend referred to a previous answer, which I cannot recall, will he say what is the position about purchasing Poseidon?

The position is as I have said: that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we have the nuclear deterrent and we intend to maintain it. We keep the effectiveness of our Polaris submarines under continual review.

I quoted earlier from The Guardian, a British newspaper, giving an account of M. Debré's attitude. There is uncertainty and, therefore, the House ought to know whether a decision is to be made. This is a very important decision. It may be a right decision or a wrong decision. At least we want to know the facts. Will the Minister say when a decision will be made and when an announcement will be made to the House?

All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that we are not now at the point of decision.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what representations have been made by the Defence Sales Department to the United States authorities regarding the United States Defence Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1973 which contains an amendment prohibiting the purchase of equipment containing a specified range of foreign produced speciality metals and which amendment would effectively prevent many United Kingdom aerospace exports to the United States Department of Defence.

Since the amendment was first proposed we have repeatedly made our views knows to the United States administration. We have strongly urged them to secure the repeal of this additional obstacle to trade between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Is not this amendment, which did not have the support of the American administration, one of the worst examples of protectionism and will it not do a great deal of harm to British exports to the United States during the period when it is in force? What estimate has been made of its effect? What steps are being taken to ensure that certain military aircraft sales in particular are not affected by the amendment?

As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is a highly protectionist amendment. That is why we have urged its repeal. But I assure the right hon.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the effect of the amendment will be borne in mind when consideration is being given to whether we should negotiate with the Chinese Government to sell to them military equipment, which it is generally believed they are interested in purchasing here?

My hon. Friend will agree that that is quite another question.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many accidents have taken place with Polaris submarines.

Apart from the deliberate destruction of a Polaris test missile on 13th February, there was a minor collision between HMS "Renown" and the motor vessel "Moyle" in 1969.

Will the Minister clarify the extraordinary written answer that he gave on Friday to one of my hon. Friends in the first part of which he said that the test had been a failure and in the second part that it had been successful? What did he mean?

There is no possible confusion in what I said originally. The missile itself was fired successfully by the submarine, but in flight something went wrong—we do not know exactly what—and that is what I told the hon. Gentleman's colleague.

To prevent any misunderstanding of the word "accidents" in this connection, will my hon. Friend make it clear that the Polaris submarines have been outstandingly safe and successful and also that the one recent malfunction caused no risk of any nuclear hazard?

As my hon. and gallant Friend says, the Polaris submarines are extremely safe and their record on missile firings up to now has been very good. I need hardly bother to assure the House that there was of course no nuclear warhead in that missile.

The answer about the "Repulse" referred to by my hon. Friend was a bit confusing, since it was said that the fault was not the fault of the personnel or of the equipment. Whose fault was it?

That is something we are seeking to find out.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has completed his inquiries into the new evidence, reported in the Sunday Times of 4th February 1973 of the methods being employed by certain employers to evade their responsibilities in implementing the Equal Pay Act.

The report on equal pay by the Office of Manpower Economics, published in August 1972, stated that it had

"found only a very few examples of employers who were deliberately taking action designed to circumvent the Act."

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is very unsatisfactory? I know he is aware of the report in the Sunday Times mentioned in the Question, that the Paper Box Federation, for instance, is taking what are called differential-preserving stratagems to avoid implementation of the Equal Pay Act and that members of the Engineering Employers' Federation are getting guidance on similar lines. One of the results is that men's lavatory attendants, for instance, are getting £3 a week more for doing more or less precisely the same job as attendants in women's lavatories. That is the kind of way in which the employers are seeking to evade their responsibilities under the Act. Will the hon. Gentleman take this matter more seriously than he appeared to do in his answer?

I have a feeling that my fault is in having taken the matter so seriously that I acknowledged that I was taking a close and personal interest in it. As for the papers issued by the Engineering Employers' Federation, they were issued in September 1970, December 1970 and July 1971. In that respect they do not represent new evidence and the effect of the guidance which they gave will have been fully taken into account by the Office of Manpower Economics study. The documents were not concerned with advice about evasion of the Act so much as with containing the cost.

Have the Government taken any steps to discourage such so-called guidance being sent out by the Engineering Employers' Federation—or, indeed, by any other employers—so that, instead of simply keeping an eye on the results of such guidance, they discourage the practice altogether?

In fairness to the engineering employers, the document, which is unhappily labelled "confidential", should be read in full. Perhaps the best way of bringing about the situation which the hon. Lady wants is that there should be publicity for the Act. The Department is mounting an intensive campaign in this respect. It will be launched shortly with the publication of a booklet to give employers advice on the implementation of equal pay.

Is the Minister aware that there is growing disquiet about the Government's complacency and indifference on this matter and that the Counter-Inflation Bill now in Standing Committee acts as a positive encouragement to employers to evade the requirements of the Act? Is he not aware that the report of the Office of Manpower Economics reveals that the average earnings of female manual workers are less than 50 per cent. of those of male manual workers and that the permissive provisions of the Counter-Inflation Bill will at best provide for a proportion of only 65 per cent. on average by the end of this year, in contrast to the 90 per cent. which was hoped for by the Equal Pay Act?

But the truth of the matter is that this Question really arises from the fact that I showed too overtly a personal and keen interest in this matter. That was why the hon. Member put it down.

indicated dissent.

I therefore reject any suggestion of complacency on the part of the Department. As for the Counter-Inflation Bill, the hon. Member knows very well that improvements in equal pay can be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will change the rule whereby a service disability pension is awarded from the date of a successful application or appeal so that pensioners receive payments backdated to the date of their discharge on grounds of disability.

This rule is the counterpart of our readiness to accept that claims for war pensions can be made or reviewed without any time limit whatsoever. It follows from this that there cannot be unlimited liability to pay arrears, and my right hon. Friend exercises his discretion under Article 65 of the Royal Warrant to backdate awards only (i) where the pensioner has been prevented by physical or mental incapacity from making his claim or appeal earlier (ii) where there has been departmental error or misdirection. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has accepted this practice as reasonable.

But I do not accept it. Would not my hon. Friend agree that there are many cases between mental and physical incapacity, as in the case of one of my constituents who suffered a certain intellectual limitation, got into a muddle and was finally rescued by the British Legion? Is not this a somewhat mean way for the Department to act?

We must have some sort of guideline or rule, but if my hon. Friend likes to send me details of that case I will scrutinise them personally.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many examples of awards being made in other respects for injury and disability retrospectively, that in this kind of case a good deal of time is spent in processing it and that months and sometimes even years might elapse? Surely it is wrong that, once an award is given in favour of the person concerned, he should be deprived of any benefit for the period which has elapsed.

The hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that the fact that there is no time limit whatsoever to claims is a marked advantage for the war pensioner. Indeed, in 1971 we made 120 awards for injuries arising from the 1914–18 war. Therefore, the fact that there is this opportunity, in addition to back-dating, seems to me a reasonable and fair provision.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many apprentices in trades needed by the hospital service have been taken on in each of the last three years in development areas.

Information in the form requested is not readily available. Following are particulars of respectively apprentices in hospital building and engineering maintenance trades and trainee cooks in post on 30th September 1972: Newcastle area 27 and 42; Liverpool area 18 and 11; and South Western area 11 and 31.

Are not these figures rather small? Would it not be possible to take on more apprentices, especially in such areas as Merseyside, where there is so much unemployment among youth?

The need for trainees and apprentices obviously varies according to local requirements and is determined by hospital authorities. It would be wrong to take them on if there was no real work for them to do, simply in response to unemployment figures. However, I will weigh what my hon. Friend has said and direct his inquiries to the regional hospital board.

Is it not true that the inability to attract apprentices to the hospital service derives mainly from the miserable wages they would receive on completion of their apprenticeship? Before we look at apprenticeships in the hospital service, would it not be better to look at the general wage levels in the service?

That is another question and one which, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his previous occupation of my post, falls to the relevant Whitley Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the number of Pakistani doctors who entered Great Britain when Pakistan was in the Commonwealth but have subsequently been refused full registration as doctors, due to Pakistan leaving the Commonwealth between their entry to this country and registration; and if he will also explain why similar regulations do not apply to doctors from South Africa.

As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 30th January, the entitlement of overseas practitioners to full registration depends, first, on the existence of an order applying Part III of the Medical Act 1956 to the country of origin. An order reapplying these provisions to South Africa after its departure from the Commonwealth was made in 1962—the Medical Practitioners (Republic of South Africa) Order 1962, Statutory Instrument 1962 No. 1090.

When does the hon. Gentleman propose to make for Pakistan a similar order to that for South Africa to which he has referred? How soon may we expect such an order to be made? Does he agree that the best qualification for a doctor is that which he has obtained rather than his country of origin or the colour of his skin? Does not the Minister understand that some of us find it extremely strange that a doctor from a country which apractises apartheid should be recognised while a doctor from a multi-racial country is not?

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that we were able to make a rapid application of the order relating to South Africa because we had some notice of its impending withdrawal from the Commonwealth.

Is not a serious principle involved in this question, namely, the skills of the doctors concerned? Is it not the fact that the General Medical Council has got into the mess that it has because it has not examined the individual skills of the doctors but has taken blanket qualifications in the place of origin?

The qualification that a man holds has to be recognised by the General Medical Council as one of the conditions for obtaining employment here. Furthermore, a practitioner who satisfies all the necessary qualification requirements of the 1956 Act will not be granted full registration straight away unless he can also show that he has acquired acceptable experience—generally a year in a hospital.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the principle that although Pakistan must certainly suffer the disadvantages of its unwise decision to leave the Commonwealth, the disadvantages should not be applied to individual Pakistanis who were in this country prior to that decision?

I recognise that we want to do everything possible to apply the inexorable processes of law with due humanity; but, as I said to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), in practice there is nothing to prevent Pakistani doctors who are caught in this way seeking temporary registration as a perfectly viable way out of the predicament, whilst continuing to work in hospitals until this business is cleared up.

Apart from the qualifications of doctors from abroad, may I ask my hon. Friend whether due regard is paid to their knowledge of English?

One of the present requirements is that somebody coming from overseas to practise medicine in this country must satisfy the basic requirements of competence and ability to communicate by working, if necessary, for up to a year in a British hospital.

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

There were a number of violent incidents earlier this month, particularly in Belfast, which were well contained by the security forces. Since then the level of violence has been generally reduced, although in Belfast bombing and shooting incidents have continued. The security forces continue to mount patrols and to make selective searches and arrests in both Catholic and Protestant areas.

While the security forces deserve the congratulations of this House for the fall in the level of violence as a result of scoring considerable successes, is there not concern at the flow of not only Eastern bloc but American arms to the IRA? Is this matter being dealt with at the highest level?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There have been considerable successes recently. Since the beginning of this month 53 Catholics and 32 Protestants have been arrested and charged with serious security offences. The other matter mentioned by my hon. Friend is being watched very carefully indeed.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for a meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan.

Mr. Tanaka has accepted an invitation to visit the United Kingdom this year. No date has yet been fixed.

As the Japanese balance of payments surplus is one of the main causes of the recent international monetary crisis, may I ask my right hon. Friend to impress upon the Japanese Government that the revaluation of the yen will not necessarily be enough to restore stability to the situation, that it remains highly desirable that import restrictions should be liberalised, that the Japanese export control programme should continue and that it is time Japanese promises were matched by action?

As the yen is at present floating it is difficult to say at which point it will finally be repegged. Part of the arrangement was that the dollar should be devalued and that the yen should float. I agree with my hon. Friend on the second part of his supplementary question, and I impressed this on Mr. Tanaka when I saw him in Tokyo last September. It is equally important that the whole system of selling in Japan should be opened up to others. Our exporters find great difficulty in getting capital into Japan to establish any form of selling institution and thus get their proper share of the Japanese market.

Regarding export control, will the Prime Minister undertake to approach Mr. Tanaka when he is in this country about the flagrant violation of sanctions in Rhodesia by Japanese salesmen? Will he bring this point urgently to the attention of the Japanese?

I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, as he knows, responsibility for the implementation of the sanctions regulations rests with the United Nations.

Would it not help the Japanese to overcome some of their balance of payments surplus difficulties if they increased the amounts that they give to Far East ex-prisoners of war?

That is a separate question. If I recollect—I should have to check this matter—I believe that there was an original settlement which was very helpful. But, diverting from that, if there were more Japanese investment in developing countries that also would help.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech made by him to the Young Conservatives at Bournemouth on 4th February on Government policies.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Bournemouth on 4th February on prices and incomes policy and industrial investment.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Young Conservatives Conference on 4th February on prices and incomes.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made at the Young Conservative conference in Bournemouth on 4th February on prices and incomes.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Young Conservative conference on 4th February on prices and incomes.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to Young Conservatives at Bournemouth on Sunday 4th February on prices and incomes.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech to the Young Conservative Conference at Bournemouth on 4th February on the Government's counter-inflation policy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made to the Young Conservatives at Bournemouth on 4th February on prices and incomes policy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Young Conservative conference at Bournemouth on 4th February on his economic policies.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the speech he made to the Young Conservatives at Bournemouth on 4th February on his counter-inflation policy.

I did so on 7th February, Sir.

I have read it again. Does the Prime Minister recall telling the Young Tories that he would like to he more generous to particular groups? Was he referring to people like himself who are on £15,000 a year and are to get a £6-a-week increase on All Fools' Day? If such people can get increases of that order, why cannot gas and hospital workers and pensioners who are fighting for a decent standard of living?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the salaries of both Members and Ministers are fixed by Parliament. I was referring to the fact that the present Government have an undisputed record of helping the deprived groups in our community, in particular the old-age pensioners, in a way that they have never been helped before.

In that speech the Prime Minister referred to the priority attached by the Government to British investment. If at sometime in the future British investment in the Common Market is running at such a level that it places investment at home in jeopardy, what action could the British Government take to redress that situation?

I am glad to say that all the indications now are that investment, long delayed thought it has been, is greatly improving. The CBI, the DTI and other forecasts substantiate that. Concerning Europe, I do not visualise the position mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If that situation arose it could be considered with the Community as a whole with either the Council of Ministers or the Commission. Surely the right thing is to make investment here attractive so that it can find suitable opportunities.

My right hon. Friend referred in his speech to manufacturers looking for black clouds in the sky to deter them from investment. Surely they do not have to look very far, bearing in mind the calamitous decline in the real rate of return on investment over the past decade or more. Is it not a fact that the shareholders of ICI, for example, would have been far better served if every penny spent by the managers of ICI on plant and machinery in the early 1960s had been invested in land instead? Is a restriction of profit margins related to five fairly calamitous years a yardstick which is likely to disperse the clouds?

As I have said, all the forecasts for investment are greatly improving. The reason is that the manufacturers say that what has deterred them from investment has been the rate of inflation and the threat of inflation, and their belief that the Government's present policies will deal with these problems is giving them more confidence for investment.

Does the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he also said, referring to wage claims, that of course there were hard cases with which it was easy to sympathise? Why does he find it so easy to make exceptions, in the case of price increases and so difficult to exercise that sympathy for hard cases when it comes to allowing wage increases during the freeze?

Very few exemptions have been made for price increases. That is borne out by the fact that right across the range of manufactured goods, including manufactured foods, the difference between the monthly indices was 0·2 per cent. and has been at that figure for two months running. That shows how effective the standstill has been right across the range of manufactured goods and manufactured foods.

With regard to that part of the Prime Minister's speech in which he criticised those members of his own party who believe in the freedom of market forces, is it not true that that was the economic policy on which his Government were elected and that the Government are in such a mess not because of the excessive wage demands of trade unionists but because of the worst economic mismanagement this country has ever been subjected to by any Government?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. As the Trades Union Congress has told us that it also believes in a free market economy, it should be possible to have it if agreement can be reached between the TUC, employers and the Government on how it is to be managed.

My right hon. Friend also referred to rates. Does he agree that today's announcement by the Greater London Council shows how much more successful Conservative-run councils are than Labour-run councils in safeguarding the interests of the ratepayers? What progress has been made in his discussions on the subject?

I have told the House that we are examining the various aspects put to us by the cities and the local authority associations. I agree with my hon. Friend, having seen the announcement about the GLC, that it is commendable that it should be asking for an unchanged rate for the second year running. I hope that other local authorities can do the same.

With regard to the gas dispute, the Secretary of State for Employment has made clear his willingness to take action before 1st April by appointing members of the Pay Board, including at any rate the component for dealing with particular cases and problems. Will the Prime Minister now consider a development of what his right hon. Friend has said?

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking a serious question.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it is one to which the Opposition want a serious answer. I was just completing my question, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to hear it.

I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He will not expect me to answer such a question without careful consideration. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said was that the appointment of secretaries of the board can be made at once, because they are members of the service and therefore available and in the Government's employment, and that the union was therefore perfectly able to present whatever material it wished. That could then be handled, and we should appoint the board at the earliest constitutional opportunity. That gives the union, or any others that wish—because the flatter cannot be considered solely on the basis of any one industry or union—the opportunity to prepare the material and hand it in.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. Of course, that was what the Prices and Incomes Board was for; it required powers. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am proposing that instead of waiting for legislation by 1st April the Pay Board should be given powers to start on the job now? As he probably could not hear all I said, because of the twittering of the clowns behind him, if I send him an elaboration of the proposal tonight will he, as he has offered, give consideration to it?

Of course, I always give consideration to anything the right hon. Gentleman puts forward. But I must re-emphasise that what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already proposed offers everything the union can reasonably ask for in consideration of its proposals or claims so that they can be implemented in the autumn in stage 3.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his foreword to Lord Zuckerman's report on cancer research, he will make a further statement on the implications of that report.

I said in the foreword to Lord Zuckerman's report that the Government would welcome the views of the Co-ordinating Committee for Cancer Research and the Standing Medical Advisory Committee's Sub-Committee on Cancer on whether there was scope for further action. I have just received the views of the first body and I await those of the second. I shall not be in a position to make a statement until the implications of these views have been studied.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the figure of £10 million shown in the report as allegedly spent on research directly related to cancer is pathetically low? Is he aware that the accounts of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund show that even that figure is a considerable exaggeration? As he lent his name to the report, will he order an inquiry into the figures now?

The hon. and learned Gentleman, having studied Lord Zuckerman's report, will recognise that Lord Zuckerman said that research could not absorb a great increase in the finance available at one go. He suggested that there should be a steady improvement in the amount of money available.