asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about recent discussions between representatives of the British, French and American Governments on nuclear weapons and bases.

There have been no such discussions.

What contribution is Britain making under the Non-Proliferation Treaty towards slowing down the nuclear arms race? Would it not help the SALT talks if, instead of trying to up-date the Polaris missiles, we phased out the missiles and their bases on the west coast of Scotland?

No, I do not think so at all. We have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the SALT talks are between Russia and the United States—we are not involved. It has not been the policy of either the present Government or our predecessors to give up our nuclear bombs.

I know that we had this argument during the defence debate, but we should like soon to know whether we are to have Poseidon. Reports have appeared in the Press which may be unfounded, but we should like to know, and my hon. Friend is right to press the matter in that sense.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) was pressing it in that sense. I know the right hon. Gentleman's view on this and he knows the Government's view. We have said several times that we are not at the point of decision on Poseidon.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of the Meteorological Office.

The Meteorological Office provides meteorological services for the community at large. In meeting these requirements, it is its policy to provide general forecasts and weather information for broadcast on radio and television, for publication in the Press and for use by the Post Office in its automatic telephone weather service. It supplements these with special forecasts or information designed to meet the needs of particular interests.

Why does the Meteorological Office seem to deny the existence of Wales, for instance, in its forecasts on the tapes in this House? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Meteorological Office's denial of the existence of Wales is to some extent the reason for such bad forecasting? Is there not a general strategic implication also? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members representing constituencies in the Principality have no idea of the weather they are going home to at weekends?

I will not comment on the last part of that supplementary question, nor can I accept responsibility for what appears on the tapes in the House. A great deal of work is done by the Meteorological Office on Wales and a great deal is broadcast both on the Radio 4 Wales programmes and on BBC and Harlech Television.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will institute a review of procedures for investigating accidents occurring while British troops serving abroad are on manoeuvres.

The present procedures which apply to accidents worldwide and irrespective of the circumstances generally operate satisfactorily, and I see no need to review them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked him a similar Question in November he said that these procedures were

"made with a care and consideration which is much appreciated by relatives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 608.]

The Question to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I answered earlier related to a different aspect of this tragic case. I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in it. The facts are that the late Signalman Johnson's commanding officer wrote to Mr. Johnson giving the circumstances of the accident on the day it occurred. I have not been able to provide further information because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a court-martial and it is not possible to give information which will be raised in a court-martial pending the result of the proceedings.

In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the German, Italian and British Governments are each up to date on their schedule of payments for work in progress on the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

The programme is funded by quarterly payments in advance. Contributions are currently up to date except for small sums due from each Government in respect of the current period.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he tell the House what burdens of extra research and development costs will now fall upon the British taxpayer because the German requirement for the aircraft has dropped from the originally envisaged 800 to 322?

As I have told my hon. Friend before, the adjustment of work allotted to each country can be varied and is varied at each phase of development and, therefore, any variation in numbers is taken into account at that stage.

Is the Minister in a position to assist us further? Is the project on schedule as regards the date of delivery? Do we expect to see the aeroplane by about 1976? Can he say what arrangements have been made for the joint training of pilots?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the aircraft is due to come into service in the late 1970s. I should not like to be pinned down to any exact date. It is more or less on schedule as of now. There will be some joint training between the three countries, but I cannot expand on detailed arrangements at present.

May I remind my hon. Friend of the commitment made to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State that this aeroplane is fundamental to the reorganisation plans of the Royal Air Force? Can my hon. Friend say precisely when the first prototype is likely to fly and whether there has been any change in the operational requirement for the aeroplane for the three parties which are to purchase it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me about what was said yesterday. I remember it very well. There has been little change in the operational requirements for this aeroplane.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what detailed preparations he is making for balanced force reductions leading to disarmament; and whether cuts will be imposed on all three Services.

Exploratory talks about mutual and balanced force reductions in Central Europe are currently under way in Vienna. If, as we hope, these talks have a satisfactory outcome, negotiations proper could start in the autumn. It is far too early to seek to predict what might be the conclusions of such negotiations.

Is it not proper that, in considering that this country is going into these negotiations, the hon. Gentleman should contemplate the possibility of their having a successful outcome? If so, would it not be a good idea to prepare in advance for that possibility by planning what sort of reductions and what prospects there are? Would it not be possible in the negotiations to put forward suggestions about the nature of the reductions contemplated by Her Majesty's Government?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we hope that these negotiations will be successful. If the security of Western Europe can be preserved with a lower level of armed forces on each side, we shall be delighted. At this stage any assessment of such an agreement is speculative and based on all sorts of assumptions which are extremely variable.

While I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, I hope he will realise that what is really important in any of these talks is to look for mutual inspection of the two sides. Will my hon. Friend bear this need in mind when the talks take place?

Of course we shall. It is the essence of these talks that the reductions should be mutual.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the talks have now run into difficulties concerning Hungary. Is he aware, further, of the persistence of the Nixon doctrine and, therefore, that the position of Her Majesty's Government should be made clear about what our reaction would be in the event of the Nixon doctrine being applied fully, concerning the effect of the reduction of American interests in Europe and the effect of reductions arising out of the talks in terms of our contribution? In other words, will the Government make it quite clear that for the defence of Europe we shall pay, with our allies, amounts not dissimilar from those of our allies and that we shall have an arrangement which does not burden the nation?

I am not sure that the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question follows from the first part. As regards the Nixon doctrine, President Nixon has said quite clearly that so long as Europe maintains and improves its forces America will maintain and improve hers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real object of the MBFR talks in Vienna is the advancement of Western security?

Of course. I agree with that strongly.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will institute a review of all property used by his Department in the West Middlesex area.

No, Sir. We keep all our property requirements under continuous review.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will be received with great dismay by the London borough of Ealing which is desperately in need of land? Is he prepared to consider again a tract of land at Northolt in the London borough of Ealing which is held by his Department for no apparent or sensible use? Is he aware also that there are buildings in Perivale which have been empty for 12 months? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply and meet representatives of the London borough of Ealing to discuss the possibility of putting these lands and premises to a more sensible use?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about any property, I shall gladly look at it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not hold on to land unnecessarily. I remind him that 216 acres of land at Hounslow Heath have been available to the local authority since 1963 and that since 1966 1,280 acres have been sold to the Greater London Council and the London boroughs mainly for housing.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will initiate discussions with the West German Government about the level of British forces in West Germany, with a view to reducing the £3,365 million defence programme, as set out in Command Paper No. 5231.

Our forces are deployed in Germany under the Brussels Treaty commitment and they are a vital part of our contribution to the military capability of the North Atlantic Alliance. It is alliance policy to maintain and improve this capability until reciprocal East/West agreement allows us to reduce it in safety.

According to Annex A of the Defence White Paper, the initial incidence of costs to our balance of payments is £209 million for keeping troops in Germany. Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that the Federal Government of Germany should now accept full financial responsibility for the upkeep of these troops and that, if they are not prepared to do so, serious consideration should be given to their withdrawal bearing in mind especially that it is now 28 years since the end of the Second World War?

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fundamental fact that our troops are in Germany not merely to help Germany but to protect the whole of Europe, including ourselves. The hon. Gentleman is right about the foreign exchange costs, and he knows that this is a problem which also exercised the Labour Government. But it is not possible to strike a balance between budgetary payments made under the offset agreement and the foreign exchange costs that we incur. We made an agreement in 1971 which is probably the best one that we have yet made.

As the recent revaluation of the German mark has clearly increased the direct cost of BAOR by £20 million since the beginning of this year, can my hon. Friend say whether there will be a renegotiation of the offset agreement?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are a great many calculations necessary throughout the defence budget concerning the revaluation. We have not yet completed those calculations, so it is too early to make an announcement.

As British troops in Germany, in the stations provided for them by the West German Government, are not in a position to make any contribution to the defence of Europe since their northern flank is totally exposed and indefensible, would not they be more useful at home?

The hon. and learned Gentleman's strategic doctrines are deeply eccentric and, if I may say so, utterly obsolete.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the negotiations and discussions. When will the Government be in a position to make an announcement about them?

I do not know. It will not be for some time.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what are the latest cost estimates for the through-deck cruiser programme, the multi-rôle combat aircraft programme and the Sea Wolf programme, respectively.

It is not normal practice to divulge cost estimates of individual defence projects under development.

Could I be allowed to have a go at the answer?

Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) should be seeking information, not giving it.

Is it not the reality that the cruisers, three of them, will cost about £75 million apiece, that the MRCA—200, I think—is not likely to be less than £400 million and that Sea Wolf itself may be over £250 million? With that order of figures, is it seriously considered wise to allow them to mature at the same time? Should not at least one of the projects be cut now?

Those are the hon. Gentleman's figures, not mine. [Interruption.] His right hon. Friend more or less admitted yesterday that we are following the same practice as the Labour Government. We keep expenditure on major projects under review. There is a long way to go before full development on these projects is complete. If there is any difficulty, there is opportunity for rephasing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that at least the first two projects are essential for the respective Services which will receive them? Is it not irresponsible of the Opposition to fail to suggest positive ways of cutting manpower costs, which are the highest burden on the defence budget, whereas the Government have put forward proposals for the rationalisation of manpower in the Royal Air Force?

I should not like to comment on the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. All three items of equipment are very important.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all the uncertainty about the future of the through-deck cruiser will inevitably have an adverse effect on morale in the Fleet Air Arm? Does he agree that an urgent and clear decision about the future is necessary?

I agree that the sooner a decision is made the better. As was said in the defence debate, however, negotiations with Messrs. Vickers about the contract for the cruiser are still continuing.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will seek to arrange a meeting with the French Defence Minister.

My right hon. and noble Friend hopes to continue his regular programme of meetings with his French counterpart.

Did not M. Debré make it clear recently that if Britain is to spend hundreds of millions of pounds acquiring the American Poseidon missiles this will rule out Anglo-French nuclear co-operation? Now that Britain is in the Community, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the wisdom of extending further our special nuclear relationship with America ought seriously to be questioned?

My right hon. and noble Friend has several times said that any discussions with the French Government about nuclear co-operation have so far been to agree that such co-operation is in the long term. The hon. Gentleman has asked the second part of his question before. I can only reply that this Government, like the Labour Government, have every intention of maintaining the nuclear deterrent.

I hope that the Minister will resist the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes). I hope he will not mind my saying this. We would reject the concept of an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent. We argued that this would be bad for relations in Europe and Western Germany. We also recognise the importance of the United States in this matter, and we want friendly allies.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly resist the blandishments of his hon. Friend. However, I am not sure that I shall resist the blandishments to which he referred.

Has not the French deterrent reached a point where it is permissible under United States law for American information to go to the French? Therefore, has not at least one obstacle to an Anglo-French shared deterrent been removed? Would not this to some extent answer some of the objections to proliferation which we hear from the Opposition?

I do not think that the proliferation arguments apply. Whether the Americans decide to release nuclear information to the French is entirely a matter for them, not for us.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will hold talks with the United Kingdom's European NATO allies with a view to setting up a multilateral fund to meet the offset costs of the United States forces in Europe.

I do not think it would be appropriate for Britain to take an initiative of this sort.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if such an initiative were to arise from one of our European NATO allies it would be worthy of support by Her Majesty's Government?

It would depend very much on what the initiative was. As I said earlier, we are all agreed that it is important not to upset the Nixon doctrine: that provided Europe improves and maintains its forces, America will do the same. I think that America realises the importance of Europe maintaining its forces.

Since, as I understand it, the harmonisation of trade is one of the objects or aims of our membership of the EEC, may I ask whether the long-term effect on this country of maintaining an unequal burden of defence expenditure, compared with our European allies, will distort our ability to trade competitively?

That is the kind of argument that I expected the right hon. Gentleman to put forward in the defence debate, but he did not. I do not think that it arises even remotely from the Question.

asked the Minister of State for Defence in what way the approach to the proposed new runway at Edinburgh airport will affect the operations at Headquarters, Scottish Command; whether this will incur any removal costs; and if he will make a statement.

The possible effects on Ministry of Defence interests of the decision by my right hon. Friend regarding the proposed new runway are under detailed study. It is, however, too early to say what the results of this examination are likely to be.

When will that study be completed? In the meantime, may I ask whether there is equipment at the headquarters of Scottish Command which will be affected by the passing of jets overhead?

We expect the study to be completed in a few weeks. We must await the results of the study before being in a position to answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question in a useful manner.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland.

In support of the civil authorities the Army is continuing to combat terrorism and to control violence, from whatever quarter they may arise.

The Minister has reminded the House once more of the tension and the exacting rôle of the British soldier in Northern Ireland, perhaps never more so than at this moment. Would he also remind the House of the leave arrangements for non-garrison troops in Northern Ireland and say whether he is in a position favourably to review them?

Is the hon. Gentleman talking about force levels?

No. Leave arrangements for non-garrison troops.

We have looked at this matter. The difficulty is that the troops who are there on four-months' duty are under considerable pressure, yet it is important to keep a high percentage of a unit on duty at the same time or additional units would be necessary. I cannot be any more helpful than that.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great debt of gratitude owed by the people of Northern Ireland to the brave rôle of British soldiers there? Will he confirm that the Government intend, as soon as practicable, to transfer the duties being performed by the Army to the police in Northern Ireland?

I entirely agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I am grateful for what he has said. It has always been the object of both the Army and the Government that the enforcement of law and order should be taken over by the civil authorities as soon as possible.

Does the Minister agree that, in order that the Army might carry out its duties, the living standards of soldiers should be the best possible? Is he satisfied that these men, who are serving with courage and sacrifice, have proper living standards? Will he inform the House what he has in mind to help forward the making available of facilities for these men?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are not satisfied with the living conditions of our troops in Northern Ireland. We have spent a lot of money and done a great deal to improve them, and this is a continuing process.

asked the Minister of State for Defence how many security incidents have there been in the Duncairn Gardens area of Belfast in each of the last 12 months; and what steps he proposes to improve security arrangements in the district.

It would require disproportionate effort to provide figures for each of the last 12 months, but I have examined the situation in the area. Since the beginning of this year there have been 13 shooting incidents, one explosion and three riots in the immediate vicinity of Duncairn Gardens, and there have been a considerable number of shooting incidents in Edlingham and Lepper Streets.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he recognise that the situation in this area of Belfast is deteriorating with the attacks on individuals and property, the attacks on churches and church congregations and recently, on Friday night, the tragic murder of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that special attention will be paid by the security authorities to this area to deal with the situation?

I fully recognise the justifiable concern of my hon. Friend for this area. I can assure him that the repre- sentations which have been made to my right hon. Friend by deputations, of which he has formed part, in recent days are being carefully considered, as is the deployment of troops in the area.

Would it not make the task of the security forces considerably easier, and particularly in Belfast, if Her Majesty's Government were to introduce a curfew?

That, I think, is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that certain church congregations in Duncairn Gardens are seriously perturbed as it is almost impossible for them to hold their Sunday evening services? Can he assure the House that the Army will be on the ground to give them at least the assurance of their military presence in the area, especially as these people come and go to their church services on Sunday evening?

I am sure that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman will be noted. Indeed, I shall see that they are. The detailed deployment of the forces from time to time must be a matter for the GOC.

asked the Minister of State for Defence what are his plans for the progressive replacement of Army units by local forces in support of the civil powers in Northern Ireland.

None at present, Sir, though, as my hon. Friend said earlier, it has always been the intention that the duties of the Army would be taken over by the civil authorities as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the size of the Regular Army in Northern Ireland is kept under constant review to ensure that there are adequate numbers in the Province.

Despite the splendid volunteer services in Northern Ireland, is not the numerical involvement of the population in its own defence entirely inadequate? When will the Government get on with placing Regular companies in UDR battalions, particularly near the border?

With regard to the level of the volunteer activities in Northern Ireland, we would welcome more volunteers for the UDR. My hon. Friend will be aware that I dealt with full-time companies in my speech last Thursday. Among other things, the creation of full-time companies would not lead to any reduction in Regular force levels.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, and instruct the GOC in Northern Ireland to bear in mind, the importance of building up the numbers, morale and degree of involvement of the members of the RUC in helping to deal with the disturbances in Northern Ireland?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Is it possible for the Army to enlist the services of the TAVR units in Ulster? If that is not possible under the emergency regulations, will my hon. Friend seek to introduce legislation to make it possible?

My hon. Friend will recall that I dealt with this matter also in my speech on Thursday. I pointed out that the rôle of the TAVR is principally to act as a reserve for the Regular Army as a whole but that members of the TAVR in Northern Ireland may join the UDR with reserved rights if they want to transfer back to the TAVR.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the strength and complement of the British Army forces in Northern Ireland; and how many soldiers are stationed there with an enlistment service of less than one year.

The Regular force level in Northern Ireland at present totals 20 major units in the infantry rôle and six armoured reconnaissance squadrons, plus various minor supporting units. This force level amounts to about 17,500 troops.

The latter part of the Minister's reply is of vital importance. The whole country is concerned about the use of very young soldiers in North- ern Ireland. Apart from the question of the hon. Member for Chigwell Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the replacement of our forces by civil forces in Northern Ireland, does the Minister accept that there is now a need for the House to know the number of young soldiers involved in Northern Ireland, the extent of their welfare and the degree to which pressures and strains are placed upon-them? There are great difficulties for young soldiers who lack experience. Finally, the House should have an overall statement about the housing of our soldiers, their recreation and their leave.

The hon. Gentleman has asked a great many questions, some of which have been dealt with in the defence debate. Others will no doubt come up in the Army Estimates debate. If the hon. Gentleman is casting any doubt on the skill of our young soldiers in Northern Ireland, that is effectively set at rest by what has been said by Members on both sides of the House in the defence debate about their great skill. As regards the minimum age at which they are allowed to go there, the hon. Gentleman may not be aware that until recently and for some years past it was the rule that they could go from the age of 17½. We have raised that to 18.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever he said on Thursday, there is a deep awareness in the country in general that there is a need to move from Regular forces in Northern Ireland to some form of civil action in that country, and that the sooner we do that the better?

I am not quite clear of the implication of my hon. Friend's question. It is possible for those who wish to aid the preservation of security in Northern Ireland to enlist in the UDR or the RUC.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operation of the fishery protection vessels on the Northumberland coast following the decision taken on joining the EEC for a six-mile limit in the area from Coquet Island to Berwick and 12 miles in the rest of the Northumberland coastline.

Two ships of the Fishery Protection Squadron, assisted by Service aircraft, have been regularly patrolling the Northumberland coast during the recent sprat season. No foreign infringements were reported or detected.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this underlines the necessity for reviewing the six-mile limit in the area of Northumberland specified in the Question? Does he agree that there is no necessity for an arbitrary arrangement which gives a six-mile limit to one part of the country's coastline and 12 miles to the other part? Will he urge his right hon. Friend who is responsible for this decision to review it as quickly as possible?

I shall pass on what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend. Regarding the existing situation, I was patrolling for a couple of days off the Northumberland coast in HMS "Brinton". It seems at present that Navy support is sufficient to deal with the regulations which exist.

asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the possible purchase of the Lance and TOW weapon systems for the British Army.

We are carefully considering, with our European allies, the purchase of Lance as a successor to Honest John. We have no plans to purchase TOW.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As he will know, I have been pressing for this for the last seven years. Can he give the House an indication of how long the negotiations are likely to take? Can he say what weapon of the same calibre other than TOW is available for the British Forces?

I cannot answer my hon. Friend's first question exactly, but I do not expect the negotiations to take very long. Secondly, as my hon. Friend knows we are developing Hawkswing.

May I remind my hon. Friend of the very great importance of helicopter-launched anti-tank missiles? Their importance was found by the United States in the Kontum battle at the conclusion of the Vietnam war. Would it not be true to say that TOW, bought off the shelf, would be an extremely cost-effective weapon for this purpose and that some of our European allies are actively considering it?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of this sort of weapon. However, we evaluated TOW some years ago and came to the conclusion that it did not meet our requirements. This is why we have been proceeding with our development of Hawkswing.

asked the Minister of State for Defence whether the subject matter of the lectures given by the Royal Navy presentation team had received his approval.

The subject matter was approved by my predecessor.

Yes, but as the whole theme was the importance of the defence of our overseas trade routes, and as none of the Ministers' speeches in the recent defence debate referred to the matter, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will rectify that omission in tomorrow's debate?

I shall deal with this matter, with the leave of the House, tomorrow. My hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention to one of the main reasons— namely, the need to guard the trade routes —for having a powerful and balanced fleet which the Government and many hon. Members on the Opposition benches wish to have.

Will the Minister accept that reliable reports suggest that, while the work of this team has been stimulating, there is a thin dividing line between the presentation of information and the advocacy of certain policies which may be controversial? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to watch that carefully?

I shall watch the performance of the new team which will go into action. I have no doubt that it will live up to the high standards of the past team. The presentation for keeping the balance was largely on the Navy, but interestingly enough it took place at the RAF Club.

Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the greatest contribution which the Navy could make to develop trade would be to place an order for the Harrier, so that Hawker Siddeley salesmen around the world would be able to say that the British Navy was now a customer?

I went up in the Harrier two weeks ago and was very impressed with it. We are hoping that the project definition studies will soon be finalised and that we can reach a decision about this matter.

Could the Minister be a little clearer when he tells the House that the presentations were approved by his predecessors? Does this mean that they were rubber-stamped or do Ministers actually see these things? What does he mean by "approved"?

A draft is submitted and we look through it and say "That is fine". In this case, it appeared to be fine and it was approved. If, on the other hand, the draft submitted by the Navy—I would think this very unlikely—was not right in all particulars, we would attempt to correct it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the increase in unemployment in Bristol likely to be brought about by the closure of the factory of BDR Machines Limited and whether he will make a statement.

It is not possible to make an accurate estimate at this stage, but the general expansion in the economy should do much to reduce the unemployment effects of a closure, and I understand that the rundown is expected to take place over a period of some months.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Bristol firm is a pioneer in the automatic vending machine business and that until recently it was very prosperous? Is he aware that the Vokes Group took it over, that that group in turn has been taken over by Tillings and that its assets have been stripped? Have employees in these circumstances no remedy at the hands of the Government but to submit to unemployment?

I understand that there have been consultations between the management and the unions involved and they are being resumed shortly. We are certainly anxious to help if we can by sending in a job team, but it would be wise for us to wait until those consultations have finished and terms have been worked out over possible redundancies.

Is the Minister aware that in this case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said, 1,700 people in a highly successful firm have been made the victims of asset-stripping and that providing alternative work for them is no substitute for support by the Government for this firm by means of, or following, an inquiry by the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he take a broader view of his responsibilities than his original reply suggested?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the question of an inquiry of that kind is not one for me. Our Department's concern is the provision of alternative employment for those who may be affected by redundancies. A number of local employers have already expressed interest with regard to the men who may be made redundant and we shall do all we can to assist them. Fortunately, the trend of unemployment in Bristol is improving and things are getting better there.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he now expects the review on the law on picketing to be completed and its findings to be announced.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very much hopes to make a statement in the next two weeks.

Meanwhile, interim remarks by Ministers suggest a preference for concentrating on enforcement of the existing law rather than remedying it. Could my hon. Friend give some indication on this matter? Would he care to give us some idea whether the disgracefully violent scenes that we saw with regard to the North Files dispute in the West Country last night show the need for reforming the law or for better enforcement?

1 would not comment on the latter point. As my hon. Friend may know, seven men have been arrested in that case, so it is sub judice. On his first point, he must await my right hon. Friend's report. The major problem is not so much the adequacy of the law as its enforcement and the need to improve general understanding of it. We have been considering what more can be done in this respect. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend's statement will point the way.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider removing the causes of strikes? Would the Government agree to throw out the Industrial Relations Act? Would they also agree to approach the trade unions and the employers with voluntary measures by which they can settle the dispute which is now arising on wages, such as those of the ancillary workers in the hospitals?

Not on the latter point. On the first point, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that there are many causes of strikes. If he examines its provisions carefully, he will find that the Industrial Relations Act, if properly applied and observed, can in fact militate against strikes.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many individual representations he has received concerning the payment of family allowances to mothers notwithstanding tax credits.

In all about 1,100 representations have been received by my Department or by the Interdepartmental Tax-Credit Study Group advocating the continuation of payments to mothers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern about this matter, notwithstanding the statement of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor which suggested that the payments would apply only to existing family allowances? Is he aware that, in view of the need for an immediate increase in family allowances generally, that principle should be extended to any increase and that the Government should give an undertaking that at no time will they change the current system of giving the family allowance directly to the mother?

There is no reason for concern on this matter. The Chancellor made it absolutely clear in his Budget Statement that the Government will not adopt any solution which means that mothers in receipt of family allowances will suffer a loss of income through the introduction of tax credits. That is entirely clear.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his pubic speech in London on Anglo-Japanese trade on 5th March.

I did not make a public speech, Sir, but I had a useful meeting on that day with the Japanese mission which came to Britain at the Government's invitation to examine possibilities for promoting imparts from Britain to Japan.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the remarks attributed to him in the Press about the need for a liberalisation of Japan's trade are very welcome? Is it not the case, however, that if one wants to persuade Japan to take an internationalist view of this problem, it is very important that in all aspects of foreign affairs, whether in the United Nations or in international monetary negotiations, Japan should have, and has not always had, a role commensurate with her economic strength?

Yes, I would agree with my hon. Friend's thesis. Of course, Japan's position in international monetary arrangements is fully recognised. As for the United Nations, it is well known that the Japanese Government would like to have a permanent seat on the Security Council. This is a matter for the United Nations; obviously there are other countries which must also be considered.

Is it the policy of the Government to seek to promote direct investment by Japan in this country? If so, what steps are they taking?

Yes, Sir, we welcome investment from abroad in many cases into this country, and this matter has been discussed on the various visits that Ministers have made to Japan. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry went there last summer. I went in the autumn, and the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping are also going there. In addition we are going to have, in 1973, 16 trade missions to Japan, 15 store promotions and assisted participation by British industry in 10 Japanese trade fairs. I am glad to say that there will be a number of inward missions from the Japanese here. In each of these ways we will make the impact that we welcome Japanese investment here.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Employment and Social Services in securing equal remuneration for women, including equality of pension rights.

Yes, Sir.

All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman must be easily satisfied. Is he aware that when his party was in opposition it took the line that the Equal Pay Act that I introduced was of no value unless it was underpinned by equal pension rights for women in employers' pension schemes? Is he also aware that the Social Security Bill now in Standing Committee does not even give women equal rights with men to belong to employers' pension schemes? What will he do to stop this inconsistency between what his party says in opposition and what it does in Government?

I am well aware that this has been discussed in detail in Standing Committee, but there is no inconsistency. As the right hon. Lady knows, the standards for men and women under the Bill are actuarially equivalent. I do not see how there can, therefore, be discrimination in this respect and I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that.

No, I will not.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the Social Security Bill becomes law, for the first time under any Government there will be a major move forward towards a situation in which employers will come close to being obliged to include women in pension schemes, whereas up to now women have largely been overlooked? Would he also agree that to raise the benefits for women under the Bill to the equivalents of those for men would require an extra 43 per cent. on the contribution? Is it not incumbent on the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to say from where that additional contribution would come?

On the latter part of the question, it is true that if one were to change the balance of benefits men would have to pay more under those arrangements and subsidise women, which would be open to the argument that it was discriminating against women. Alternatively, because women live longer, they themselves would have to pay a higher contribution, and that would also be claimed as discrimination against women.

Does the Prime Minister think that his prices and incomes policy will retard or expedite the progress of women to 90 per cent. of equal pay for equal work by the end of this year? If he thinks that that target will be achieved, why does he not introduce an order as provided for under the Act originated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)?

The target of 1975 remains. There is a clear instance at present with the National Health Service ancillaries, which I have quoted previously in the House. In addition to the present offer of £l·80p made to women a further instalment of 80p has been offered in October in order to carry forward movement towards equal pay. This is specifically allowed for in the Government's policies.

asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with sole responsibility for the work of the Central Policy Review Staff.

No, Sir. The Central Policy Review Staff is at the disposal of the Government as a whole and works for Ministers collectively.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he not agree that this body may need rather closer political supervision? Has his attention been drawn to a recent Press report of a speech of Lord Rothschild, in which the noble Lord said that he and his thinkers were busy studying where the Government had not deviated from their election manifesto but ought to have done so? Is this really a thoroughly suitable occupation for a bunch of civil servants, however eminent?

It is well known to administrations of both major political parties that Government Departments constantly analyse and take account of both Government political manifestos and Opposition manifestos. It is absolutely right that they should do so.

If the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is right and Lord Rothschild is working on those aspects of Tory policy which have not been traduced since the General Election, may we take it from that that Lord Rothschild's team is working only part-time?

If that were to be so, it would be because the Government will, by the end of this Session, have carried through the greater part of the legislative programme set out in the manifesto.

What are the general directions given to this team? There is misunderstanding throughout the country about whether it is the Government's intention to return as soon as possible to an entirely free market economy or whether the Prime Minister's personal view will now prevail and that we should look forward to intervention in the economy for the foreseeable future.

I have repeatedly told the hon. Gentleman and the House, as well as telling the TUC and the CBI on countless occasions, that it is the Government's desire to return to an entirely voluntary policy which would be negotiated between the TUC, the CBI and the Government.

Did the Central Policy Review Staff work on the BSA support programme announced yesterday, on which it appears that the Government have been engaged for two months? Is the CPRS working on individual projects of that kind?

It is not the task of the CPRS to work on individual projects, unless they are matters which, under the instructions of a Minister, it is asked to work on because they cover more than one Department. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience that there are at times matters which cross the boundaries of a number of Departments. One of the useful purposes of the CPRS would be to do an analysis covering several Departments.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC to discuss the economy and inflation.

There are no arrangements for a further meeting at present, Sir.

Would not a meeting be in order to discuss the TUC's request for a commission of inquiry into the hospital workers' strike? A commission of inquiry might find out, for instance, that a mortuary attendant who has to stitch together the bits of road accident victims or drain the bodies of people who have been drowned receives only £19·80 a week for doing a job like that. Should not such facts be made available to the public and the Government?

As the TUC knows, it was invited to discuss the whole of the pay code with the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically invited the TUC to do that, and I have invited the TUC myself. The TUC has not accepted the invitation. The Government can take no responsibility for that. If the TUC had accepted the invitation, there was no aspect of the Price and Pay Code which it could not have discussed fully with us.

Will my right hon. Friend note that what is happening at present seems to show that reasonableness is beginning to prevail and that it is not for one side or another to claim that they are getting a victory but to make certain that at the end of the day common sense is recognised on all sides so that the nation will not suffer?

Yes, I agree very much with my hon. Friend that this is the situation. Very often, from the media, people at home and especially people abroad get an entirely wrong impression of the real position here. At a time when we have well over 20 million people working hard and every day, working increased hours with high earnings in an expanding economy, the numbers who are either on strike or carrying out disruptive action are very small.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are very pleased indeed to see his move away from his confrontation policy and, in that sense, that reasonableness should apply? We are all glad about that. Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the only possible way that we can get a solution to the economic problems confronting Britain is for him to be a little more elastic and to try to persuade the TUC and its constituent unions to get around the table, instead of being just slightly offhand with the TUC, and to recognise that unless the TUC is consulted and has discussions the right hon. Gentleman will get nowhere?

The hon. Gentleman's allegation is completely unjustified. In the talks which we had from July onwards until October, and again at the beginning of this year, I believe that in our relationship with the TUC and the joint discussions in depth we as a Government and I myself as Prime Minister have been closer than any other previous administration. At present we are carrying on discussions with the TUC over a very wide field of common interest. It is over the particular aspect of the prices and incomes policy and the invitation to discuss the Price and Pay Code that the TUC has not felt able to accept the invitation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether or not an offer of another week's holiday for the miners would be within the counter-inflation policy and the code?

At present the miners have two weeks' continuous holiday. I think that they have seven rest days, the public holidays and, in addition, five individual holidays. What the National Coal Board has offered them, which is entirely within the code, is that those five days should be made into a week's holiday, which would enable miners then to take three continuous week's holiday if they so desired. This is entirely within the code and that is what they have been offered.

asked the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry on the future development of the economy.

1 met representatives of the CBI, accompanied by Lord Melchett representing the nationalised industries, on Thursday 15th March, to discuss the consultative document on the Prices and Pay Code. The CBI expressed its support for the objectives of the Government's counter-inflation policies and agreed that the Government's commitment to a high rate of growth was being fulfilled. The CBI emphasised that there should be no discouragement of efficiency or of the investment necessary to maintain growth. The Government undertook to consider very carefully the points which were made.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the representations made by the CBI to the Government arguing that the regional employment premium should be continued until 1978? Is he also aware of the CBI's prediction that if REP is not continued there will be a loss of jobs in the development areas numbering between 20,000 and 50,000? Will the Prime Minister listen to the CBI on this occasion? If not, will he explain how Scotland will fare after £40 million has gone from its economy in 1974?

My hon Friend the Minister of Stale, Scottish Office, saw the Scottish section of the CBI last Friday, when it put various points to him. I do not endorse the figures which the hon. Gentleman and the CBI have given. I see no reason why the Scots should have dramatic figures of that kind thrown at them. But we shall note the points raised by the CBI and examine them.

Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the CBI has at least always been constructive at its meetings with him? Will he further agree that the TUC might be induced to be more constructive if he were prepared to discuss with the trade unions some form of no-strike bonus, possibly beginning with the nationalised industries?

I do not want to make any distinction between the CBI and the TUC on the basis of constructive contributions to the talks that we have had on a large number of occasions. I am not sure that the suggestion that my hon. Friend put forward has been examined. If the nationalised industries wish to deal with the matter it is open to them to do so. If the TUC or the CBI were to put it forward for discussion we should gladly take part in those discussions.

In his examination of the submissions by the CBI on REP will the Prime Minister take into account that there are other ways of achieving the benefits which all of industry has in the development areas? For example, in Italy there are reductions in the employers' contribution in certain areas and that is admissible under the Treaty of Rome. Is not that an alternative? Industry is worried that REP is being withdrawn and that the Government are suggesting no replacement.

The hon. Member is right when he says that there is a considerable number of ways in which the same result from the point of view of purchasing power can be brought about. It can be done on a regional basis and the hon. Member is right about the Community. It is necessary to emphasise that REP will not stop by the end of 1974 but that it will be phased out over a period, and we have undertaken to have discussions with the CBI and the TUC about the timing of that phasing-out.

Does not the Prime Minister recognise that uncertainty about the future of REP is affecting investment decisions now and that unless companies know now whether REP will continue they are unlikely to site their factories in the development areas?

There is no evidence that this aspect of REP is having any deterrent effect on investment in the development areas, but that does not alter the fact that we will have discussions as soon as possible about the phasing-out after 1974.