asked the Secretary of State for Defence in formulating his defence procurement policies, what account he takes of employment consequences.

Close attention is paid to the employment consequences of all defence expenditure, but the primary objective of defence procurement must be to ensure that the equipment needs of the Services are met in the most timely and cost-effective way.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who advocate decreases in defence expenditure are as concerned about employment as those who advocate increased defence expenditure? Does he further agree that the American experience of relocating resources into non-defence uses and the suggestions put forward by the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards in this country give good cause for hoping that such a successful transfer of resources could take place?

I completely accept my hon. Friend's sincerity in desiring not to reduce employment. I must point out that the transfer of work from the defence to the civil area is difficult. If there are opportunities for additional work in the civil area to deal with the quite unacceptable level of unemployment, I know that my right hon. Friends will be concerned to take such opportunities. This is not a matter strictly falling within my responsibilities.

Is there any point in transferring the Services pay and records office to Glasgow, apart from transferring unemployment from Glasgow to other areas?

The question of the dispersal of work from the Ministry of Defence, along with that from other Government Departments, was decided by the Government some time ago. I do not think that this leads to unemployment and I cannot see how the subject arises on this Question.

What will be the role, in matters of procurement, of the defence committee of the Scottish Assembly whose formation was anounced in the House of Lords yesterday?

With great respect to my hon. Friend, I did not realise that the Assembly, which has not yet been elected, had had its committees selected for it. As my hon. Friend knows, the Assembly does not have a devolved power or duty in respect of defence. I cannot help my hon. Friend about what may or may not be the function of a committee that may or may not be brought into being.

The Secretary of State has on previous occasions admitted that no fewer than 218,000 jobs were to be lost as a result of the Labour Government's defence cuts. How far was this taken into account and how far were Labour Members below the Gangway consulted on this massive job destruction programme before it was embarked upon?

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is a little prone to exaggeration.

They are the right hon. Gentleman's figures.

No Government would conceivably have gone through with the defence plans which the Government inherited dealing with forward expenditure. While employment is of paramount importance, we have, in the defence area, to tailor our defence procurement to the direct needs of the Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will increase the number of soldiers in the British Army of the Rhine.

The manpower establishment of BAOR is kept under regular review. No decision to increase it has been taken.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread feeling in BAOR that units are being asked to do more with fewer men? Will he confirm that some soldiers have been doing a 70-hour week, and that BAOR has specifically asked for an extra 2,500 men?

I am not prepared to comment on reports of this nature on the number of soldiers that BAOR has or has not requested, or to disclose what proposals may or may not have been made.

Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to cost this and other proposals from the Opposition for increased defence expenditure? Will he give some estimate of what would be the effect on taxation of these additional costs?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. In fact, the Opposition are screaming for cuts in public expenditure all the time. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) is giving commitments which would cost goodness knows how many thousands of millions of pounds.

Since it is well known that large numbers of tanks have had to be put into mothballs because there are not enough men in BAOR to man them, how can the Under-Secretary dare to give such a complacent answer to my hon. Friend's Question? What is the Under-Secretary doing to remedy this disasterous situation?

On the main question, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford on 17th April. If I were to spend time in replying to speculative Press reports with the hand of the hon. Member for Stretford behind them, I would be doing little or nothing else.

Since I know for a fact that those tanks have been put in mothballs, how can the Under-Secretary dare to atempt to deny that that is so?

Because the right hon. Gentleman well knows, since he held the senior office of Secretary of State for Defence in the last Tory Government, that this is not the sort of information that we discuss publicly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received regarding the non-eligibility for social security benefits of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces serving in Germany.

I am not aware of any formal representations on this matter, but I know that there has been concern in the Services. While this is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, since the relevant regulations apply to Service men and civilians alike, discussions have been held between this Department and DHSS since last year.

In that case, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that, although they pay United Kingdom income tax and, indeed, national insurance contributions, the members of the Armed Forces in Germany are not eligible for any social security benefits. Is not the Under-Secretary aware that there are many families whose tour has some time to go when a son finishes school, and he is suddenly unable to obtain employment in Germany, and cannot come home without his family, and has no social security benefits. What is the Under-Secretary doing about that?

I have already indicated that we have had discussions with the DHSS on the matter. The question of eligibility for benefits is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Will the Minister explain why Forces in Germany, for example, have been charged full earnings-related national insurance contributions when they cannot derive the benefits? They cannot get the family income supplement. If they have teenage children of 16 or 17 who have just left school, they cannot draw unemployment benefit. This is doing the forces out of tens of pounds per week for which they would otherwise be eligible.

The discussions are mainly concerned with family income supplement, unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit. The first two are payable to the dependants in Germany only under restrictive conditions. The third item, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is not payable at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent operations of the Royal Navy task force in the Indian Ocean.

The Royal Navy Task Group which crossed the Indian Ocean in March was on its way home to the United Kingdom after a series of visits to the Far East and Australia. While on passage through the area, the opportunity was taken to conduct routine exercises with ships of the United States and French navies.

When the Under-Secretary visited the ships of this force, did he say, as has been reported, that as an economist he would not pay the Navy more because the Navy does not contribute to the national economy? What evidence can he cite that economists have contributed more in safeguarding the economy than the Royal Navy?

There is absolutely no ground for that report or for the other report which appeared in the Daily Telegraph and was attributed to me. I pointed this out in a private letter to the editor. In so far as I entertain views on either of those two counts, as some Conservative Members know, I expressed those views publicly precisely to the contrary.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an estimate of the number of additional jobs which will be provided in the United Kingdom and Scotland, respectively, as a result of the increase in defence expenditure.

It will not be possible to work out in detail the employment implications of the defence budget targets for 1979–80 and 1980–81 until the programmes for those years have been fully drawn up.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a tendency over the past years to run down the number of defence jobs coming to the West of Scotland? In view of the fact that in that part of the United Kingdom we have more than the national average of unemployed, will he look at the position and try to reverse this trend?

I shall, as my hon. Friend requests, look into the position. But he will know that, as a result of the Defence Review, we have greatly reduced the civilian manpower directly employed by the Ministry of Defence. In placing defence contracts we have to follow the contractual procedures and to be guided by the timescale and the cost-effectiveness of the equipment that we wish to acquire.

Will the Secretary of State give an indication of the increase in the number of personnel in the Armed Forces as a result of the increase in defence expenditure?

We have not come yet to a final view about the expenditures for these two years, but I have already announced an increase in the Royal Marines by retaining 41 Commando. I have also increased the establishment of the Army by a composite battalion, and another 1,200 or so for Northern Ireland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning I telephoned his office and that of each of his four ministerial colleagues to give them the page references in yesterday's House of Lords Official Report, where it is stated that the Scottish Assembly would set up an official defence committee? What relationship between the defence committee of the Scottish Assembly and the Ministry of Defence is there likely to be on the question of jobs?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for telephoning my office and giving me the Hansard references. I confess that I do not take a line by line interest in the deliberations on the Scotland Bill in another place. But, of course, as I have already told my hon. Friend, defence is not a devolved subject under the Bill, and the Assembly will have neither powers nor responsibilities in this field. As to whether an Assembly that has still to be set up will have a defence committee, and what it may or may not do if it has one, my hon. Friend will have to restrain his impatience and await the development of events.

In view of the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), will the Secretary of State confirm that the percentage of the defence expenditure actually spent in Scotland has been and still is unfairly low?

As I have explained already, unfortunately it is not possible to place defence contracts on a sort of population average basis. I have to go to firms which specialise in the production of aircraft, ships, or whatever it may be. Quite a number of ships are built in Scotland. I shall look again at the question of percentage, but I must try to get the best equipment for the forces at the best value, and this does not necessarily mean that expenditure can be spread regionally on an average basis in the way that all hon. Members might wish.

If the right hon. Gentleman has any idea about what is happening in his Department, will he tell the House what has been the net decrease in defence jobs since the Labour Government came to power?

Of course, defence jobs are outside my Department. I would not, without notice, be able to give an exact number. But at present between 270,000 and 300,000 people are directly involved in defence contracts for us and in our overseas sales. I would think that at least that number are involved indirectly on subcontracts. Therefore, defence still provides a substantial amount of highly technological employment.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to deny that at the very least, if we take civilian and military jobs together, his Government have cost at least 150,000 jobs?

I cannot commit myself to a figure of that size without notice.

The right hon. Gentleman should look at his own answers then.

If the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) would listen a litle more and talk a little less, we should all be more satisfied and he might become more enlightened. I shall look at the number and write to the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the defences of the United Kingdom against possible air attack.

Yes, and, as I announced in the recent defence debate, this Government are continuing to make considerable improvements in the air defence of this country.

I congratulate the Minister because he must be one of the few people, apart from those behind the Warsaw Pact Iron Curtain, who is satisfied with our air defences. As we have not bought the Nike missile, and as we have not developed the Thunderbird missile, what defences do we have against supersonic bomber attack?

Before the hon. Gentleman starts criticising this Government about the state of the air defences of this country, he ought to look at the record. He will find that it was the Conservatives who dismantled and discarded the air defence capacity of this country. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what we have done to improve the air defences of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend announced the setting up of another squadron of VC10 tankers for air-to-air refuelling, which will considerably improve our air combat capability. We have announced the coming into service of Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft, the increase in our Rapier squadron and Bloodhound missiles, and a large number of other issues, all of which are restoring the ability of this country to defend itself after the actions of the Conservatives.

Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that if an unidentified civilian aircraft entered British air space it would not be shot down?

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that a civilian aircraft entering our air space would not be shot down. We have well proven procedures. If an unidentified aircraft comes up on the radar screen, it is invariably intercepted. It would be signalled and radioed to follow our interceptor aircraft and land. If it did not respond, we would continue to shadow it until such times as we could get it safely to respond to our instructions.

Since the Korean civilian airliner was over Russian air space for nearly one hour before the disgraceful attack took place by Soviet aircraft, can the Minister give the House an assurance that no unidentified aircraft would stay for an hour over our air space before being identified by our early warning system?

I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that our systems of air defence are such that any unidentified aircraft penetrating our air space could be intercepted, if that were the option we wished to exercise.

Since it is impossible for my hon. Friend to answer questions about the vulnerability of our air defences without some estimate of the likelihood of an air attack, can he give the House his estimate of just how likely that is?

We must take a realistic view. I hope that the negotiations on disarmament will be successful. But we must not neglect the fact that the Soviet Union has increased its capacity to reach the whole of these islands with offensive aircraft. Therefore, in the event of war, we would be subject to air attack. That is why the Government are so anxious and efficient in trying to restore our air defence capacity.

I am delighted to have the Minister's assurance that Britain's air defences are so much better than those of the Soviet Union. Indeed, I believe them to be such. But before making so much play of the strength of Rapier squadrons, can he confirm that there is only one Rapier squadron deployed at a British airfield and that there are plans for a second one? What plans does he have for a more substantial deployment?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that as a result of our activities there will be more Rapier squadrons deployed for the defence of our airfields than were left by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). It is not my intention to bandy across the House matters which ought not to be so bandied about. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to act irresponsibly—as he does—in defence affairs, that is up to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary of Defence

I next expect to meet Dr. Brown, the United States Secretary of State for Defence, at the ministerial meeting of the Defence Planing Committee in Brussels on 18th-19th May 1978.

When my right hon. Friend next meets Dr. Brown, will he confirm with him that all American nuclear weapons situated in this country are equipped with electronic safety catches and insensitive high explosive triggers? Will he tell the House why he was so unforthcoming in his answers on this subject, which is quite common knowledge in discussions in the United States?

With regard to the answers that I gave my hon. Friend—I think on 13th April—I followed the practice of successive Governments over many years with regard to classified information in the nuclear area. When I see Dr. Brown, I shall certainly tell him of my hon. Friend's concern. But from my own visit to the United States Air Force, and my own inquiries, I am satisfied that all reasonable precautions as are possible are exercised by the United States Air Force in this country.

Will the Secretary of State be using his meeting with Dr. Brown to tell him which airfield the Government have decided shall take the American KC135 tanker aircraft? Will he also be telling him that on environmental grounds it will not be RAF Greenham?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is trying to jump the gun. Important though this matter is to his constituents, I do not think this would be appropriate for a NATO Defence Planning Committee agenda. However, I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, I met a deputation from his constituency which was led by himself. We shall take note of all the points that were made to us and as soon as possible I shall announce a decision.

When my right lion. Friend meets the Secretary of Defence, will he congratulate him on the fact that the United States are not going ahead with the neutron bomb? Can he assure us that no one in the United States, or in the Tory Party in this country, is planning a bomb which will destroy trade unionists and Socialists?

I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's congratulations to Secretary Brown. But I am afraid that on this subject or any other I would hesitate to give any assurance on behalf of the Tory Party because, as I hope the electors of this country have now come to realise, there is an immense difference between Tory protestations and promises before elections and their performances in office.

Why during the last few months did not the Government seek to help President Carter with regard to the neutron bomb by telling him what the Government know to be true—that Europe needs this weapon?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions, there has always been the question of the conflict and question of balance between the military advantage on the one hand and the arms control considerations on the other. As the Prime Minister has said, we accept and support President Carter's decision. I think that is right in the sense of this particular situation and in the sense of the alliance. That is far better than the irresponsible attack on President Carter which the right hon. Gentleman made at the time of the decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in regard to the setting up of effective collective bargaining machinery covering members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

The current debate on this issue began last November. Since then, apart from parliamentary representations, I have received resolutions from two constituency parties of the Labour Party and I have seen a delegation from the Asociation of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I have also received 10 letters from members of the public which offered comments on the subject of corporate representation for the Armed Forces, but none of these was in favour of the idea.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has a paternalistic attitude which we in the Labour Party should not accept? Does he agree that the sooner we have effective trade union organisation and effective collective bargaining machinery to deal with wages and conditions of members of the Armed Forces, the better?

I do not accept that the Review Body is a paternalistic institution. It has very clear terms of reference. Its job is to compare Armed Forces pay with that in comparable civilian occupations, plus the X factor. It does this with great competence. We are indebted to the distinguished body of people who serve the Armed Forces and the nation in this way.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the Services the view is not, as it is among trade unionists in the House, that a trade union is the solution to all man's ills, from dandruff to sleeping sickness?

In the representations that I have received I have heard nothing about dandruff or sleeping sickness.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at least in principle the denial of the rights of trade union organisation to members of the Armed Forces is a denial of their maturity, sophistication and responsibility as citizens? Does he agree that to place them at a disadvantage with, for instance, those unfortunate people who work for the Grunwicks of this world is a gratuitous insult?

I do not accept that view. I endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder). From my experience and inquiries I find that the great majority of members of the Armed Forces do not believe that their position would be improved if they belonged to trade unions. Some of my hon. Friends might think that that view is misguided.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Armed Forces certainly do not want trade unions? What they want is Ministers who will support them and who are effective in so doing. Is he further aware that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be judged on their effectiveness by the statement to be made this afternoon?

I am too modest to comment on the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I accept his general view. In my view, most members of the Armed Forces do not feel that their position would be enhanced if they belonged to trade unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the NATO Defence Ministers.

I shall next meet the other NATO Defence Ministers at the ministerial meeting of the Defence Planning Committee in Brussels on 18th-19th May.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to his colleagues that he and the British Government will not support any argument in favour of deploying the neutron bomb within NATO? Will he also make it clear to his colleagues that arguments in favour of this weapon by Conservative Party spokesmen are resented deeply by millions of British citizens?

My hon. Friend's first question is unlikely to arise. My sense of the discussions at the most recent meeting of the Nuclear Planning Group was that its members accept President Carter's decision, as I do. I am not sure that the views of Conservative spokesmen would he of major interest to my ministerial colleagues.

At that meeting, will the Secretary of State be pressing upon his colleagues how vitally important it is for the future of our NATO defence strategy that the arms embargo on Turkey should be lifted at the earliest possible opportunity?

I think that the hon. Member is referring to the embargo by the United States. I do not know whether that will come up directly or bilaterally. As the hon. Member knows, discussions are taking place between the two countries. We shall be looking at the longterm defence plans which are to be submitted to the Summit. Obviously this matter will be relevant in that context.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to meet the Defence Minister of Iran.

No. Sir.

When my right hon. Friend does meet the Defence Minister of Iran, will he convey to him that there is deep feeling throughout this country about the number of students who have to cover their faces when they demonstrate against that terrible regime because of brutalities, tortures and reprisals against their relatives? Will he look carefully at any defence agreements that we have with that Defence Minister and ensure that the weapons are not turned inwards against the democrats in Iran instead of being used for legitimate defence purposes in that country?

I am not sure that it would be the Defence Minister's responsibility to deal with the activities of students. We sell arms to Iran, which is a respected ally in CENTO. I feel that there is no reason why we should reconsider that decision.

Is it not clear that it is in our common interest that Iran should increase its forces in areas such as the Gulf and the Indian Ocean? Should we not do everything that we can to support our allies in CENTO?

I agree that this is important. The leadership that Iran has established in that part of the world and the real international status that the Shah has achieved by his long experience are assets for stability in that difficult part of the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make an official visit to the defence establishment at Inchterf.

My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a visit at present.

If the Minister cannot visit Inchterf personally, will he send one of his senior officials to investigate complaints from local people about the excessive noise caused by the firing of ammunition there? If nothing can be done to reduce the noise level at source, will the Government consider providing special sound insulation in the houses? Is he aware that people complain to me that it is like living next to a battlefield?

My right hon. Friend and I have the greatest sympathy for the people who suffer from the noise of this establishment. But I must remind my hon. Friend that the establishment, which was built before the First World War was there long before any of the existing housing estates. If my hon. Friend has any details about property which has suffered damage as a result of the noise, I should be glad if he would forward them to me. I shall then have the matter examined by the claims division of the Ministry.

Since I am one of the local residents subject to the noise at Inchterf, could the Minister say when we can expect a report from the Property Services Agency which is looking into the alleviation of noise at source? What level of expenditure does the Minister envisage for the sound-proofing of houses, and how does it compare with the profits made at Inchterf?

We expect that the report will be available in August. I cannot say what the results will be. Until we get the recommendations, I cannot comment on what provision will be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will pay an official visit to RAF Boulmer.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if he had made that visit today or in recent weeks he would have found keen interest in the statement that we all await on Services pay? Does he recognise that it will not be simply what is done to restore the lost comparability that is important but what guarantees can be given that comparability will be maintained in the future? Does he also recognise that increased accommodation costs bear very heavily on those who have very little freedom of choice about where they live, because of their work?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making today. There are many other aspects affecting RAF Boulmer and other RAF stations, apart from pay and problems of that nature, such as insulation of property and trying to deal with the heating costs, about which the hon. Gentleman has written to me on a number of occasions. I appreciate his help and the efforts he has made on behalf of his RAF constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the membership and responsibilities of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.

The Defence Scientific Advisory Council is established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State for Defence on scientific and technological matters of concern to the Ministry of Defence. The chairman and other independent members all have distinguished careers in the academic or industrial world and each is appointed in his personal capacity by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it has been suggested in some quarters that there is something mysterious and sinister about this body? Will he confirm that it is the kind of body that would be expected to advise the defence services of an advanced industrial country?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing sinister or unworthy about the council. It is a highly valued organisation which gives proper advice to my right hon. Friend. There is nothing sinister about it. We welcome and admire the distinguished men and women who serve on it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates have been made of the likely timescale of the production and deployment of the neutron bomb to fulfil the strategic and tactical requirements of NATO.

As the hon. Member is aware, President Carter has deferred production of this warhead.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this weapon is essential to NATO, in view of the massive build-up of tanks and conventional forces in the Warsaw Pact? Is he also aware that it is probably one of the best weapons in the defence of Europe to prevent all-out nuclear attack, and that, whether or not the bomb has been delivered, we should be making plans as to how many are required?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. As I said earlier today, it was a very difficult decision for the President to make, balancing the military advantages, which I concede exist, and the arms control considerations. We feel that in the present circumstances President Carter's decision was right, and Her Majesty's Government fully support it.

Did my right hon. Friend see the Evening News of a couple of weeks ago in which there was a very strange cartoon called "The Wizard of Id", in which the principal character was asked what benefit there was in our having a bomb that killed people but did not destroy property, and received the answer "It prevents looting"? Is not that a rather sick answer to the ultimate capitalist weapon, and will my right hon. Friend have nothing whatsoever to do with it?

I do not recall that cartoon. In any event, I should not be influenced by it. It is grossly inaccurate to describe the enhanced radiation warhead, popularly and inaccurately called the neutron bomb, as a weapon that destroys people but does not damage property. Of course, property would also be damaged by such a bomb. I thought that by now at least the facts of the matter had been established, although I understand that the arguments nevertheless still go on. Quite clearly, all the property in the immediate vicinity of such a bomb, if it were ever to be used, would be destroyed.

Why does the Secretary of State imagine that it should be only this one item in the entire nuclear armoury that causes such hysteria among many of his hon. Friends? Could it just be that it is the only item in that nuclear armoury with which Britain and the West are ahead of the world?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair in his comment. As we on the Government Benches have frequently made clear, our concern is with the totality of nuclear weapons, and our desire is to have a reduction of that totality on both sides. It would be quite wrong to single out any one particular weapon for special treatment. What we want to do is to get a reduction right across the board.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

I met representatives of the TUC on 28th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Following the Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I shall refrain from suggesting that a neutron bomb might be dropped here and that it would have the advantage of preserving the building and doing away with the rest of us, and will confine myself to asking my right hon. Friend whether he will discuss with the TUC the question of the poll carried out for the Sunday Times, which appeared last Sunday. It shows that, far from accepting the views of the Leader of the Opposition, the British people reject reducing taxes as a way of using North Sea oil revenues and prefer creating jobs and stimulating industry. Has my right hon. Friend studied that poll, and will he discuss it with the TUC?

My recollection is that, if the poll is to be believed, there was a substantial group of people who believed that regenerating industry came first, together with finding alternative sources for our oil when it eventually runs out. I believe that they put tax cuts below that. That is in fact the policy that the Government put forward in the White Paper, and I am very happy if there is some confirmation of it.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether when he next meets the TUC there can be, following that discussion, an open and public debate, not confined to the economc committee of the TUC and the Prime Minister, about the future level of pay settlements—whether it is called phase 4 or anything else? Can the whole country be allowed into the discussion about the future level of pay increases and the consequent effects on inflation and unemployment?

I am not aware that anyone is stopping a public debate. Indeed. I have heard quite a lot of public debate about pay policy. The question is at what stage the Government should join in, and on that I reserve my rights.

In his contacts with the TUC, will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to Hansard of 14th April, dealing with trade union matters, which showed beyond a peradventure that however much those on the Opposition Front Bench might think they had an understanding with the trade unions they would never be able to deliver because of the voices behind them?

I always believe that there is a prospect of educating the Opposition, and I—[An HON. MEMBER: "My right hon. Friend is an incurable optimist."] My hon. Friends believe in the fallibility of man, whereas I believe in his redemption. I still believe that it is possible for the Opposition to work with the Trades Union Congress, provided the Opposition repudiate many of the policies they are following at present.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he explain why the Treasury's latest forecast of current account surplus for this year, at £750 million, is only about half the forecast it made just a few months ago? In view of the alarming recent trade figures, does the Prime Minister think that even that reduced forecast will be met?

I would not attach as much importance to forecasts as the hon. Gentleman apparently does. I beg him to turn to a consideration of some of the things that are actually happening instead of forecasts that may never take place.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for Tuesday 25th April.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I shall be addressing the fortieth anniversary rally of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service.

In between those important engagements, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to read the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's recent speech at the Mansion House, in which he condemned both Russian and Cuban intervention in Africa? In the light of reports today that both Russia and Cuba intend to step up this level of intervention, what are the Prime Minister's views on this matter, and why does he not refer these interventions to the United Nations?

I shall study any reports that have appeared on this subject and get what information is available. I think that the Government's position has been clearly stated and is well known on the position of the Soviet Union in the Horn of Africa, together with Cuban irregulars or regular soldiers. As for referring the matter to the Security Council, the appropriateness of that course must be considered week by week and month by month.

Will my right hon. Friend have time today to begin considering the speech that he intends to deliver to the special session of the United Nations on disarmament? If so, will he include in part of the speech congratulations to President Carter on his decision to postpone the development of the neutron bomb, which has led to a better atmosphere at the SALT II talks in Moscow recently? Will he ask President Carter, therefore, to extend that decision a little from only deferring the development of the bomb to banning completely its development?

I have not been considering the speech today, but I have already started discussing the line that it should take. I had some discussion with Chancellor Schmidt about the general line that we should try to concert among ourselves on disarmament at the United Nations when he was here at the weekend. I think that it is known that we supported the decision of the President of the United States to postpone production of the neutron bomb. I observe that General Secretary Brezhnev has said that he intends not to produce it either, if the reports are to be believed. As for the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty talks, we should not assume that everything in the newspapers represents the real negotiating position between the two sides. I am hopeful that an agreement will be reached.

When the right hon. Gentleman addresses the fortieth anniversary dinner of the WRVS, will he explain why his Government's policy forced it to withdraw its staff in Germany, where it had been manning clubs for Service men for many years, because the Government refused to continue a public funding?

That is not included in the text of my remarks, but what is included is that the Women's Royal Voluntary Service operates on a voluntary basis and that only its expenses are met. If the hon. Gentleman cares to give me some more details about what he has just said, I shall have the matter investigated. I have had no complaint from the WRVS about that which he has raised.

In view of the urgent necessity to get some stability into the world's exchange rates, will my right hon. Friend say what progress he was able to make this weekend on this matter in his talks with Chancellor Schmidt?

It is somewhat difficult to go into these rather technical matters in the course of question and answer. What I think is clear—the general principle that emerged was clearly stated—is that any new arrangements which are in the minds of anybody and which might be devised in Europe, or on a wider basis, should not be in opposition to the present role of the dollar but should be worked out in a way that will assist the dollar and not attack it.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 25th April.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern).

In the midst of my right hon. Friend's many commitments, will he give some thought to the serious situation now developing in respect of the amending Bills to the Employment Protection Act? Will he take into account the highly organised opposition of the Tories against these Private Members' Bills which are dedicated to trying to prevent the sort of events that occurred outside Grunwick and which the Tories are on record as being in opposition to but clearly would like to create throughout the country, and give us time to get these important amending Bills through the House? Will the Government take them over so that the sort of events on the streets that the Tories rejoice in will not need to be engaged in outside any further Grunwicks?

I know that there is a great deal of sympathy for the Bills to which my hon. Friend refers. However, the Government must be reluctant to take over Private Members' Bills. We are talking about Private Members' time and it should be regulated in that way, otherwise we may as well abolish Private Members' time. There would be an awful howl if we did that

I revert to the answer that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) about the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Does not the right hon. Gentleman have any unease that the Secretary of State's policy on Rhodesia appears to revolve around giving his whole support to a group of men who have admitted that what they want to see in Rhodesia is the creation of a one-party Marxist State?

I have read some remarks made by Mr. Mugabe about this topic and I hope that when there is one man, one vote and one woman, one vote in Rhodesia, or in the new Zimbabwe, those concerned will take those views into account and vote accordingly. I would not find myself able to support Mr. Mugabe on that basis, and I hope that the voters will not do so either.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the drop in unemployment levels announced today is especialy welcome in the Northern Region? Is he also aware that if unemployment levels are to keep coming down we must expand our own economy and ensure that the West German economy is expanded?

I was, as I am sure was the whole House, gratified to see that for the seventh-month running there has been another small fall in the number of unemployed and a rather larger increase in the number of vacancies, so that the seasonally corrected figure is now 5·7 per cent. I agree that an expansion of our economies generally will be of assistance in reducing the number of unemployed, but the Western countries are facing structural changes and structural challenges as a result of the transfer of technology to some of the newer countries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman try to find time today to see his Press Secretary and to ask him how it was that a letter on the subject of forthcoming changes at the head of the two intelligence services was wrongfully sent to the editor of the Morning Star? Will he ask him whether that was an error or whether it was done on purpose?

Yes, Sir. I have seen the Press Secretary today. The letter that was sent informed newspaper editors of the reasons why the Government did not propose to announce the names of the two new appointments to particular posts. No newspaper has published the names, and I am very grateful for that. The Morning Star has not published the names. It has expressed the view that it does not wish to add to any possible physical danger to the holders of these posts, but it uses the letter to criticise the secrecy of the operations of the intelligence and security services. That, of course, is the right of the Morning Star in the free and democratic society in which it operates.