asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the disposal arrangements for the RAF's fleet of seven Belfast transport aircraft.

Yes.

Is not the Minister aware that these seven aircraft represent a specially constructed capability for transporting heavy equipment in support of our land forces? Is he not further aware that there is widespread concern in the country to the effect that the Government may not have the aircraft capability to meet a requirement for a rescue operation? In that case, does he not think that the decision to cannibalise these aircraft is the height of Government irresponsibility?

I do not accept that. Our VCIO fleet and the Hercules fleet are adequate to cope with all foreseeable contingencies which we have in mind. As for our total capability, I should be more impressed by what the hon. Gentleman says if he and his hon. Friends were supporting us in our attempts to increase our air-to-air refuelling capability rather than making niggling complaints about commercial decisions of this nature.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that, thanks to this Government, the military airlift capability of the Royal Air Force has been slashed by 50 per cent.? Does he appreciate that in consequence of that the decision was taken by his Government to stand down the only remaining brigade-size formation of airborne forces remaining in this country? Is that not a serious situation, bearing in mind the rising Soviet threat to British interests and British lives in other parts of the world, specifically Africa?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear to the House, the Government are satisfied that they have the capacity to come to the aid of citizens involved in difficulties overseas, where that is necessary.

Order. I should have told the House at the beginning of Question Time that yesterday I had another complaint about our going slow on Questions. Without any reflection at all on those who have taken part so far in Question Time today—because their remarks have been to the point—I express the hope that we shall have brief supplementary questions today; otherwise I shall have to be more ruthless about calling supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and what were the equivalent figures on the same date in 1976 and 1977.

The total strength of the Navy and Royal Marines, the Army and the Air Force at 30th April 1978 was 74,449, 159,740 and 84,590 respectively. The corresponding figures for 1976 are 75,577, 168,651 and 90,291; and for 1977, 75,720, 165,603 and 86,608. All these figures exclude locally entered Service personnel.

Is it the policy of the Government that the steady reduction in the numbers of the Armed Forces of the Crown should continue? How does that reduction compare with the increase in the Armed Forces of those countries from which an attack, in so far as an attack is apprehended, may come?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". The figures are not likely to change greatly in the near future. As to the second part of the supplementary question, numbers are only a part of the capability. Equipment and training are also important elements.

Has there not been over the same period a huge increase in spending on military research and development to a figure of £872 million and on military equipment to a figure of £2·8 billion? Would not this research and development expenditure have been better devoted to non-military matters?

I agree with my hon. Friend that in the best of all possible worlds we should far rather spend research and development money on nonmilitary matters. Unfortunately, such is the state of international tension that we do not believe that that option is open to us.

What is the sense in the Government's policy of creating unemployment by reducing the number of Service men and then spending millions of pounds paying people to count lampposts and the like?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that those two questions are not connected. That story has been traded across the Floor of the House many times. The reduction in the Armed Services was due to a planned programme consequent upon the defence review of 1974. That defence review was based on a realistic assessment of what this country's defence commitment should be for the last quarter of the twentieth century.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government's defence cuts have yet cost 200,000 jobs? If not, by what date will they have cost 200,000 jobs?

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to opportunities in defence industries, he is wildly in excess of the figures that I have at my disposal, which indicate that the maximum will be about 140,000 next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, at the next meeting of NATO Ministers of Defence, he will seek to place on the agenda the question of equipment standardisation.

When I next meet my NATO ministerial colleagues collectively at the defence planning committee towards the end of this year, we shall discuss general defence issues, including those arising from the long-term defence programme, and also the report by the conference of national armaments directors to the council which deals with equipment standardisation and inter-operability.

Within the context of the 10-year long-term defence programme and the recent announcement about accelerating co-operation between Europe and America in the development of new weapons, will the Secretary of State now say what specific obstacles he sees in the way of undertaking further moves in the direction of standardisation generally?

Standardisation is much more easily dealt with by talk and resolution than in actual practice, because all countries have problems of industrial equipment. There are also problems of time scales. For example, I believe that we were right to decide to go for Nimrod for our airborne early warning aircraft. If we had not done so, the whole of the NATO airborne early warning system might have collapsed. Although we are seeking the maximum inter-operability, it was contrary to standardisation.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it has been argued that the Warsaw Pact Powers are able to obtain much greater efficiency for the same expenditure purely because they have a higher level of standardisation? Will he accept that this matter should be treated very much more urgently?

I agree that there is an enormous military bonus to be gained from complete inter-operability of equipment, although I should hesitate to want an alliance dominated by one partner in the way that the Warsaw Pact is arranged. Within the realms of practical possibility, we and our European allies are seeking, with the United States, to achieve what we can in this direction.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the real obstacles to standardisation are the short-term economic interests of each member country in the NATO alliance? We are all pressing here for standardisation on security grounds, but there would be a howl of protest from each side of the House if there were standardisation which resulted in far fewer jobs in this country. That is true of all the NATO countries. How is this matter to be resolved?

Not only in defence but in the wider context it is easier to agree to the general proposition than to the particular propositions which flow from it. I believe that we can, by devising a system of packages, work out a means whereby in Europe we can sustain employment in our industry and at the same time achieve, with our United States allies, a better arrangement than we have now.

Now that the Germans appear to have won the tank gun competition in the United States, will the Secretary of State say whether we are to press ahead with our own tank gun development or whether, on the grounds of inter-operability, we are to accept the German 120-mm smooth bore gun?

We are still considering the options open to us for the next tank to succeed Chieftain, and I have not yet reached any decision. But clearly the question of standardisation or inter-operability is one of the factors in that decision. On the other hand, I still believe that the British gun is the best gun in the business.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that a fitting prelude to standardisation of equipment would be to standardise the contribution that we make to NATO as a percentage of our gross national product, in view of the constant complaints that we receive from the Opposition, when we are paying, as a percentage, more than anybody else?

My hon. Friend is even sharper than usual today, because he has asked a supplementary before I have been able to answer the Question on the Order Paper in his name, to which I was looking forward. I do not think, however, that it is quite as simple as my hon. Friend suggests to standardise the contribution that each country makes. It depends not only on defence expenditure but on the size of the country's gross domestic product. I look forward to carrying the argument further when we reach my hon. Friend's Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS "Bulwark" to commission.

As I told the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 9th June, HMS "Bulwark" will be brought to a fully operational state in the course of this year and will rejoin the operational Fleet early in 1979.

Bearing in mind that we now have no commando ship, may I ask how long HMS "Bulwark" will take to convert from her primary role as an anti-submarine warfare carrier to a commando ship, should such a necessity arise?

No such conversion is called for. The hon. Gentleman above all should know that she was withdrawn from an amphibious role and is being introduced into an ASW role, because that is where the Soviet threat is now greatest.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what advice was given by higher authorities to Service men against their wives attending the parliamentary lobby on pay.

The Ministry of Defence has issued no such advice. I should like to make it clear that Service wives are completely free to speak in public, write to the Press or contact their Members of Parliament and that any anxieties about possible retaliation against their husbands are completely groundless.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that wives alleged that pressure was put on their husbands to advise them not to attend? Will he make it clear to commanding officers that wives have the right to lobby Parliament or to visit Members of Parliament on any matter they choose, Service pay included?

We have made the position absolutely clear throughout. Indeed, from the number of letters that right hon. and hon. Members have sent to me there does not appear to be any great inhibition—rightly so—on the part of wives. Indeed, there is no reason why Service men themselves cannot contact their Members of Parliament.

Is not the rather pathetic sight of Service men's wives coming here to lobby Parliament, appearing on television or writing to the Press on behalf of their husbands another clear indication that it would be far more sensible if we regularised the position and allowed Service men to take part in negotiations about their own wages? Is it not time that we encouraged them to join a proper trade union?

I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion would entirely remove the problems. Although I firmly believe that the Government's pay policy has been absolutely essential to the economic recovery of the nation, nevertheless I know that many of my constituents and others who are in trade unions are not totally satisfied with their pay settlements. I do not necessarily think, therefore, that the matter would have been resolved in this way.

Does the Secretary of State think that it was or was not a pity that no Members from the Labour Party were present to hear the views of the Service wives?

That is untrue.

I read in the Press about arrangements for such a lobby, but until late in the afternoon I had no intimation that the wives wished to see me. Certainly I would not have thought of visiting them without prior notice. I have written to several of the wives concerned. If they had intimated their desire to see me, I would naturally have tried to rearrange my programme, but we had no intimation that they desired any such interview. Frankly, I have other things to do than just sit in the Central Lobby in the expectation that somebody might want to see me.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that, whereas many working people are dissatisfied with pay policy, it is difficult to find another example where they have to send their wives here to lobby Members of Parliament? I urge my right hon. Friend once again that the only way to deal with the problem is by effective trade union organisation and effective collective bargaining to look after the pay and, indeed, the working conditions of the workers and technicians in uniform.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for again making quite clear his views on this subject. I do not happen to think that the particular problems we had with regard to pay would have been easily resolved. Other problems could have arisen. As I have said, one of the difficulties is that I am not at all sure that the Armed Forces are at present anxious to join trade unions, but this is obviously a problem which we must look at in the longer term.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the airlifting capacity available to Her Majesty's Forces.

Within the resources available, I believe that we have the most cost-effective mix of airlift capacity and other military capabilities.

Is the Minister aware how completely his complacency contrasts with the view of other observers, including the Expenditure Committee of this House? If it should be necessary for this country to mount a rescue operation comparable with that mounted in Zaire by the Belgian and French forces, could we do it?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already dealt very exhaustively with that point. As always, he is accurately reflecting the considered view of the Government on their capabilities to protect British citizens overseas.

"Mix" is a highly sensitive word, and perhaps "mix-up" is better. Does not the Minister agree that there is nothing like sufficient air capacity to do a rescue operation? There are not sufficient airborne forces to carry out any sort of operation. In the event of an emergency, what plans does the Minister have to take steps to make use of the nationalised air corporation—British Airways—and the various other companies? It is very important that on this point I should be informed as to what plans there are.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's observations about "mix-up", I can think of no greater mix-up than the activities of Conservative Members who are continually criticising the Government in respect of defence capability, yet many of them are queueing up outside my office to protest against the enlargement, expansion and increase in the air defence capacity of this country and our NATO allies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. As to the availability of civil aircraft, long-standing arrangements have operated under successive Administrations whereby we would have availability of civil aircraft to reinforce our military transport capability.

That is the second time when the hon. Gentleman has made absurd allegations against my hon. Friends. Why does he not make clear that what they have done is to object on environmental grounds to their constituencies being chosen? They have all made perfectly clear that they are in favour of this capability, and the Minister knows that perfectly well.

Making clear that one is in favour of an improvement in air-to-air refuelling capability could be best demonstrated by Members of Parliament, particularly Opposition spokesmen, making clear to electors, especially their own supporters, the vital necessity of having the capability in this country to carry out air-to-air refuelling.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the availability of equipment to those regiments serving in the British Army of the Rhine.

I am satisfied that the British Army of the Rhine has the equipment it needs to perform its role. Our aim is to ensure that BAOR can continue to meet the threat as it develops, and there is a major re-equipment programme under way to achieve this aim.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the first priority of any Government is to be able to guarantee the security of the State against external aggression? Is he aware that certain units in BAOR cannot undertake exercises because of shortage of material and equipment and also because it takes a tremendous time to get the necessary spares for the obsolete equipment which they have?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first premise. There has been no significant shortage of spares in BAOR during the last year. In an organisation as large as the British Army, it is inevitable that temporary shortages will occur from time to time, but these are overcome as a matter of normal equipment management.

Bearing in mind that the State with which we are concerned is Germany, and that in percentage terms of the gross national product Germany's contribution is less than ours although her exchange position is very strong, would not it be in the interests of NATO for Germany to make a bigger contribution to the equipment of BAOR?

I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly on this issue, but it does not arise from this Question. Perhaps he would care to put down a Question on the Order Paper for next time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Winston Churchill.

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

The hon. Gentleman has made it impossible for me to call the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill).

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his policy to let farms on the Otterburn range without giving opportunity to potential tenants to tender for them.

No. Farms belonging to the Ministry of Defence are normally let by competitive tender, but very occasionally a letting by private treaty may be justified.

How does the hon. Gentleman justify doing precisely that in the recent case of Carl Croft? Is he not aware that, whatever value may be found in the use of this farm as an adjunct to the county agricultural college, many farmers in the area very much resent the fact that the normal opportunity to tender for this opportunity to farm was not provided?

I can understand the feelings of hill farmers in the Northumberland area, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Northumberland County Council badly needed a hill farm to improve the teaching facilities of the Kirkley Hall agricultural college and wished to rent Carlcroft farm. It was considered to be in the public interest that the farm should be made available to the county council.

When the Ministry of Defence land is let for farming, will the Minister make sure that it is let for farming in acceptable practices? In other words, will he keep his pigs out of residential areas?

The hon. Gentleman and I have been in constant correspondence in recent months about pigs, and he well knows that his Gosport constituents should not be troubled by pigs on Ministry of Defence land.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects next to meet his NATO colleagues.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet other NATO Defence Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends next to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues.

I shall next meet my NATO colleagues collectively at the ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee towards the end of this year.

Will the Secretary of State at least discuss with them the possibility—I appreciate the difficulties—of France rejoining NATO because of the absolute necessity of having a clear command structure in times of emergency, not to mention the obvious difficulty of a successful resolution of the Vienna talks without France being in NATO?

I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on this point. Of course, it will not be my colleagues in the defence planning committee who will be mainly concerned. It is France herself which does not attend. While I would welcome the return of France to full participation in the Alliance, I think it is good to know that co-operation, as far as it is possible, outside the integrated arrangements is good. I have no doubt that, should difficulties arise, we could count on the support of our French allies.

Will the Secretary of State urge the acceptance of the new Warsaw Pact proposal for force reductions in central Europe, whereby for the first time the Warsaw Pact would make a greater reduction than NATO? Is not this an opportunity for ending the four-year impasse—this minuet—whereby one side advances or retreats as the other side advances?

I would agree with my hon. Friend that the Warsaw Pact response, which was delivered quite recently, is extremely significant. It is not a case of a minuet. It is really the first time that it has made a significant response There are problems about the data. Clearly, one cannot discuss detailed reductions without knowing the base. Like the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who talks about percentages without a base, one cannot do that kind of arithmetic. Therefore, it is important to clarify the data. This is under way and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is responsible for these negotiations, is, like myself, most anxious that there should be a positive response. For that reason, I would not want to wait until the next meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Commissioner Davignon has welcomed, on behalf of the EEC Commission, a recent report of the European Assembly which calls for the establishment of an EEC arms procurement agency? When the Secretary of State next meets his NATO colleagues, will he put this suggestion before them and ascertain whether they would welcome or resent such a development?

I have seen the proposals of Commissioner Davignon but I am not sure that they represent the best way of trying to get standardisation and inter-operability in Europe. For the moment, I am persuaded that the independent European Programme Group is a better approach to this problem, not least because it includes all the European members of the Alliance. Certainly I shall sound out my colleagues informally and let my hon. Friend know if I receive any positive response.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the geographical guidelines of NATO no longer make sense? Will he see about a renegotiation of these when he next meets his colleagues in NATO?

I am not sure that I agree that the geographical guidelines make no sense. In view of the substantial long-term defence programme that NATO has undertaken following the Summit, it would not be wise for me at this juncture to bring up the problem of redefining the boundaries of the Alliance. However, I understand and share the concern of the hon. and learned Member that there are problems outside the strict NATO geographical limits.

Does the Secretary of State feel sufficiently encouraged by the significant response of the Russians on the limitation of armies on the central front to suggest to his colleagues in NATO that they should seek a limitation on naval forces, particularly on submarines, in order to see what kind of response the Soviets give?

Since it has taken rather a long time to achieve anything in Vienna—some five years—I would hesitate, until we make significant agreed progress in central Europe, to start another set of such discussions. Naturally, however, I am anxious for multilateral arms control agreements in any areas of conflict.

Was my right hon. Friend saying earlier, in effect, that the fact that our gross domestic product is lower than that of a number of our NATO allies justifies our having to make a higher proportional contribution to NATO? Is that not the equivalent of saying that the lower a person's income, the higher the proportion of it that he should have to pay in income tax? That is patently absurd.

I hope that my hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that I would not suggest such a proposition as he is trying to attribute to me. It is not easy to adjust one's defence expenditure on an annual basis, according to how the total figures work out, at the same time as the NATO European countries are increasing their defence expenditure. In fact, we have already moved from 5·1 per cent. to 4·9 per cent. of our gross domestic product, and this year it will be 4.75 per cent. We are moving down to the NATO European average, while our NATO European allies are moving up as a result of the additional expenditure that they have undertaken.

Bearing in mind SACEUR's request to the NATO allies for increased readiness, how can the Secretary of State explain to his NATO colleagues, when he next meets them, that he has given instructions for more than 10 per cent. of Britain's Chieftain tank forces on the Rhine to be placed in mothballs? When will the manpower situation be such as to allow them to be put into normal operation again?

I think it is unlikely that they will raise this matter. They are aware of the very substantial contribution that we make through the Rhine Army. I believe that that problem is in hand and will not exist when the next NATO ministerial meeting takes place. While I do not complain that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues raise the shortcomings in our Armed Forces—it is right that they should do so—I would like them to say something positive from time to time about the excellent job our forces are doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new plans he has to enable the Royal Air Force to utilise areas in certain Commonwealth countries for training in low-flying techniques.

We are currently considering the possibilities for low-flying training in other countries.

Will the Minister say what representations he has had from the Canadian Government, who have, I understand, offered parts of Labrador for training in low-flying techniques? Labrador is relatively unpopulated, and low flying in that area would not cause the same disturbance as it causes over parts of the United Kingdom at night.

We already enjoy very good relationships with the Canadian Government and very good facilities in Labrador. I hope that this relationship will continue for a long time. We would certainly be prepared to respond to any initiatives from the Canadian Government to expand these facilities if that is their wish.

Has the Under-Secretary received any representations from any Labour Members about the environmental damage done in their constituencies by low-flying aircraft? If so, has he condemned them in the same unreasonable and vitriolic way as he did my hon. Friends who resent the reactivation of Greenham Common, which has not been used for military purposes for some years? Also, is he aware that a housing estate has been built on the approach to that common?

I have received representations from both sides of the House about low-flying aircraft. I have also received from hon. Members on all sides very great understanding about the essential role that low flying plays in training the RAF to perform its functions of preserving the security of this country. However, at a time when we are trying to increase the defence capacity of NATO and the United Kingdom, I am entitled to take it rather hard when I am criticised by Conservatives who claim that the Government are not doing enough. When we attempt to do more, we are condemned for doing so.

My hon. Friend has replied in a most courteous manner to the representations from my constituents about the problem of low flying. Will he take account of the need to vary the flight patterns of the aircraft on their way to low-flying areas so that they do not overfly exactly the same areas on every occasion?

We are reviewing the whole pattern of low flying in the United Kingdom. When that review is complete, I hope that it will be possible not only to vary the route but to spread the burden that exists. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides for the care they take in representing the views of their constituents on this difficult problem and their understanding of this essential requirement of our defence capabilities.

While I appreciate the great skills of the officers involved to avoid the possibility of another massacre of Glencoe, could I remind the Minister of the problem of low flying there? Is he aware that a lot of my constituents in that area are night-shift workers who find it very difficult?

We take enormous care to vary the routes and to take account of particularly sensitive areas and activities in undertaking low flying. The disturbance that occurs from this training is nothing compared with the massacre that would occur if this country were left defenceless and the RAF were not capable of performing its proper function.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to strengthen the Paratroop Regiment.

No, Sir.

If Britain were to mount a rescue operation comparable with that mounted recently by the French in Zaire, is the Minister satisfied that this country has enough paratroops, aircraft and resupply and reinforcement facilities to carry out a proper job capably, or are the Government as complacent about this matter as they are about everything else?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated recently,

"the capacity to look after the lives of our citizens is there".—[Official Report, 23rd May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1330.]

Does it not ill become hon. Gentlemen who constantly complain about Soviet and Cuban military intervention in Africa to look constantly for ways in which we ourselves can intervene militarily? Does my hon. Friend further agree that by far the best, the most sensible, the most moral and the most popular policy that the Government could adopt would be for them to take an even-handed approach in condemning any foreign military intervention in Africa, whether from the Soviet Union, Cuba or France?

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's basic premise, but I believe it is important that this country should have the right and ability to protect the lives of its nationals.

Is the Minister aware that those who were most strident in their criticism of the introduction of members of the Paratroop Regiment in South Armagh, where they have carried out a good job, have been very silent in the past few weeks about the atrocities committed by the IRA? Will he further accept that, although the Parachute Regiment can carry out a good anti-terrorist job, the terrorists will be defeated only by the proper application of anti-terrorist techniques employed by the SAS?

I was with the 1st Parachute Regiment in South Armagh less than a week ago, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is indisputable that that regiment has carried out a superb job in South Armagh, and considerable sympathy for the losses sustained by the regiment has been expressed by the people in the area. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that IRA terrorists can be defeated only by the SAS. Every regiment operating in Northern Ireland has the capability to defeat terrorist-type activities of the IRA and will continue to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the "Two-way street" sales between the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

The position remains substantially as I set it out in my reply to the hon. Member on 6th April. The United States Government are playing their part in the implementation of the 1975 memorandum of understanding on reciprocal defence procurement. United Kingdom firms have been increasing their efforts to win orders in the United States and sonic successes have already been achieved.

With respect to the Minister, I must point out that he did not tell me anything more on 6th April than he has told me now. Why is it that this House is not allowed to know what is available publicly in the United States to Members of Congress about precisely what has been sold each way across the Atlantic? Why should we not know the truth?

We have been at pains to show that our disclosure procedures with respect to these memoranda of understanding have marched step by step with those in the United States Congress. If the hon. Gentleman has information that is on public record on the other side of the Atlantic, which has not been disclosed in this country, I shall be happy to examine it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the two-way programme between this country and the United States of America, many people in this country are disturbed at the activities of private entrepreneurial manufacturers who, as it appears from BBC programmes, can easily sell arms made in one country to another and they can then be used against the interests of the country which made them? Will he examine this matter and deal with it when he discusses the subject with NATO and American officials?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the BBC programme which was put out last night—

indicated assent.

I am glad to have my hon. Friend's assent. That programme dealt more with the activities of an international arms salesman than with a manufacturer of armaments. There is a certain amount of private enterprise manufacture of arms in this country, but all exports of arms from this country are under Government control and must have an export licence issued by Her Majesty's Government. We control these sales very closely.

If the agreement is working as well as the Minister of State suggests, in both civil and defence aspects, why was it necessary for British Airways to borrow £34 million from the Japanese to buy a jumbo 747?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The memorandum of understanding on which his hon. Friend's Question was based related merely to military procurement—the "Two-way street" sales.

Since the sales of weapons to the United States may not be going as well as my right hon. Friend would like, will he say whether his Department is considering the sale of arms to the People's Republic of China? If it is, what kind of arms does it think would be acceptable to sell to that country?

I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the subject of sales to the People's Republic of China hardly arises on a Question relating to the sale of arms to the United States. As for the progress under the "Two-way street" arrangement, I would inform the House that, although we are far from complacent, I am wholly satisfied with the good faith which the United States Government and United States manufacturers are exercising to see that the memorandum is brought fully into effect.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June.

In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the congratulations of every hon. Member of the House on his being the first recipient of this international award for statesmanship? But will he also make it clear when he sees the Prime Minister that many Labour Members are concerned at suggestions that the Government may implement the Boyle Report on top salaries? Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Prime Minister that if the Government implement that report there is no chance whatsoever of their achieving a further round of pay restraint with the trade union movement?

In reply to the first matter mentioned by my hon. Friend, I shall certainly convey his representations to the Prime Minister. I believe that the House would wish to congratulate the Prime Minister not only on the prize he received but on the speech he delivered in the United States, which is a speech of major importance on the international scene. I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks in the second part of his supplementary question, but I have nothing to say to the House on that subject today.

Can the Lord President suggest how the Prime Minister reconciles the Government's present difficulties over pay when the Financial Statement said that inflation would go up unless pay increases were kept down and when the Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government would make their views on pay known in due course? In view of the fact that the present policy runs out in four weeks' time, when will the Government speak?

I see nothing irreconcilable in those statements. The prophecy about the figures was given, and the Prime Minister has already said that a further statement will be made on these matters before the House rises for the recess.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the thousands of redundancies that have occurred on Merseyside and the 600 redundancies now pending in Kirkby? Will he accept that only a bold, new, imaginative initiative by the Government, such as the funding of the 1988 Olympics operation on Merseyside, could adequately deal with Merseyside's problems? Will he also firmly repudiate the Tory proposals to make areas such as Merseyside safe havens for spivs, racketeers, speculators, exploiters of labour, Soho pornographers and ponces, and Tory crooks, because we want none of it?

It is easy enough to accept what my hon. Friend says in the latter part of his remarks, and I am sure that all of us on the Labour Benches are glad to agree with him. On the first matter raised by my hon. Friend, I trust he agrees that tackling the appalling unemployment problems on Merseyside and elsewhere calls for a whole series of measures at home and abroad. It was especially those international measures which must be taken on a wide front to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech. I believe that he carries the support of all Labour Members in giving a lead to the whole Western world in seeking to deal with this problem of unemployment.

When the right hon. Gentleman is reflecting on respect for the law, will he consider the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, published today, and reflect on his own attitude to the independent judiciary? Does he appreciate how much his personal attacks on judges undermine respect for the law in this country?

The right hon. Gentleman has been misled, perhaps by his leader, on the subject of my comments on the judiciary. All that I have done is to give some simple history lessons to those who ought to have learnt their history at school.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to comment further on the Shadow Chancellor's suggestion that the solution to unemployment in deprived areas such as Clydeside and Merseyside is to create tax-free havens for employers, with little, if any, employment protection legislation for workers? Would that not increase deprivation by creating lawless ghettos where workers would have little, if any, protection under the law in basic matters such as health, safety and job security? If this idea is typical of what is coming from the Tory think-tank, is it not clear that it has become rather septic?

I should not like to comment further in response to my hon. Friend's invitation. A most apposite statement was made the other day. It was:

"There is no way in which this problem"—

"can be solved by easy application of free market forces. Mr. Milton Friedman has only to take a short cab ride from his university in Chicago to see what free market forces have done to some districts of that city."

In his acting capacity, will the right hon. Gentleman do a useful job for the Prime Minister and look into a case of apparent lack of co-ordination between two Ministries, one of which expresses regret about the murder of British missionaries while the other pays direct aid to a country which harbours terrorists who do that sort of thing?

This whole question was dealt with fully and adequately by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday. I do not believe that there is any contradiction in what he said to the House and the whole of our policy on this matter. I am sure that the best course for the House to take in this respect is to follow the advice of the British Council of Churches, which is fully in accord with what was said by the Foreign Secretary yesterday.

The Lord President referred to his orginal reply. May I refer him to his reply to the first supplementary question? Does he not think that it is disgusting that top civil servants should get a 20 per cent. pay increase without one murmur from the Government and that there should be rumours of 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. rises for the members of boards of nationalised industries without one murmur from the Government, while he has said that he can do nothing for hon. Members who, if their pay were set at the same real level as the salaries they were receiving in 1965, would be entitled to just on £11,000 per annum? If he cannot do it for one, why does he do it for the other?

I have nothing to add to the earlier answer that I gave on this subject.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman bother to turn up at all?

Of course, hon. Members' salaries will be debated in the House in a few weeks' time, as I have indicated on a number of occasions.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the first four Ques- tions to the Prime Minister are pretty ridiculous, make a mockery of the House and make it look even more ridiculous than it sounds on the radio? May I ask him a question that is directly relevant to the answer that he gave about the Hubert H. Humphrey memorial award? Is he aware that the main barrier that Hubert Humphrey met on his way to the White House was the lack of cash? Is he further aware that the United States Government subsequently had to change the regulations governing the remuneration of political parties in America? What will he and the Government do about the Houghton Report?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be of great benefit to democracy in this country if we could carry into effect the recommendations of the Houghton Report or recommendations along those lines. I should like to see a majority in the House to achieve that purpose, and as soon as there is such a majority I hope that this will be one of the many excellent measures that will be brought forward. Whether the hon. Gentleman will be here to join us in that happy event, I am not sure.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June 1978.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in addition to increasing the cost of defence and promising £700 million on the training of youth, the Conservatives also have a General Election gimmick of £4,000 million cuts in public expenditure? If the Prime Minister is not aware of this, will he ask the Leader of the Opposition to explain how the Conservatives are to bring about those cuts?

As to my right hon. Friend being aware of these simple facts, I think that the idea has crossed his mind occasionally and I dare say that over the months ahead he may be provoked into making references to these matters. Of course, it would greatly assist us if the Opposition —perhaps the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) himself—would make a full statement of all the expenditure increases they have recommended. I gather that they are having deep disputes on this subject, and the sooner we can see them resolved, the better.

While the Prime Minister was in America, did he express to President Carter the Government's support for the lifting of the United States arms embargo on Turkey, which the British Secretary of State for Defence supported last week and which the Western European Union Assembly also recommended last week?

I do not think that that was one of the special subjects which the Prime Minister discussed, although he will, no doubt, be making a full statement to the House on this and many other aspects when he returns. The House should recognise that in his speech in the United States my right hon. Friend took a special occasion to try to ensure that the nations of the West should apply their minds at the Bonn Summit meeting to the appalling problem of unemployment. He urged that nothing should be done to injure the SALT negotiations—I believe that he will have the support of the country in that—and he also outlined an attitude towards the problems of Africa which should command the support of people throughout this country. The House should recognise that the Prime Minister on his visit to the United States spoke for the whole country—or, at any rate, for the more civilised section of the country.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about whether the Prime Minister has discussed with President Carter the question of the Singer Company on Clydebank? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the Glasgow, Garscadden by-election great promises were held out to the people of Clydebank that the Prime Minister would be able to save the jobs of the people in Singer and that these expectations have been cruelly dashed in the last few days?

The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the situation. This was not one of the subjects which the Prime Minister was discussing with President Carter. Of course we have been eager to sustain jobs on Clydebank, and it was partly because of action by the Government that the jobs were available in the first place.

Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to get hold of a Conservative Central Office list of official Tory parliamentary candidates and note that they include these days the names of extremists such as Ward of Grunwick? Will he point out to the electorate on every conceivable occasion that, should it he misguided enough to vote Tory next time, we shall be in for a long, hard winter if people such as Ward are elected?

I must say that my hon. Friend is a generous fellow. It is hard to think that some of the prospective candidates would be any worse than a few of the Conservative Members we already have on the Opposition Benches.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

(e) one member to be appointed by Mr. Speaker after consultation with representatives of all minority parties.'.

The object of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to take you out of politics. On the present basis, the proposed House of Commons Commission will consist of six persons: yourself, or your successor in office; my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, or his successor in office; the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), the Shadow Leader of the House, or presumably his successor in office; someone appointed, as the Bill puts it,

"by the Leader of the Opposition"

I suppose that I should wait to hear what the Government have to say on the amendment. It seemed to me that three was the right figure. The idea was that one member would be from the Government of the day, one member would be from the Opposition and the other member—perhaps the Government will correct me if I am wrong—would be by agreement with the smaller parties. The Liberals, the Scot Nats, if they ever come back—I hope that they do not—and the Ulster Unionists would have to get together, have a chat and decide who should be their member. That is how I see the composition of the three. I am not sure what four would do.

I understood that the intention of having four rather than three members was to provide the Government of the day with a clear majority on the Commission.

I think that we should get this matter clear. The intention is to ensure that the governing party—not the Government, as my hon. Friend said—should be represented by half the Commission. At the moment it has two out of five if we exclude Mr. Speaker. If we include Mr. Speaker, it has half. However, I do not think that we should classify Mr. Speaker as part of the governing party, still less of the Government.

My hon. Friend and I have met somewhere in the middle. This change is designed to ensure that, if necessary, there will be a voting majority on the Commission. Some of us believe that the intention of the Bill in setting up the Commission is to keep it on a non-voting basis, and certainly one which does not have too much regard for the politics in this Chamber. That is why I resist the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'which shall' and insert

'and shall cause it to'.

With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.

This is a drafting improvement to an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller), and accepted in Committee, to provide that the annual reports of the Commission's exercise of its functions shall be printed. The amendment has the effect of placing an obligation specifically on the Commission to ensure that this is done, otherwise, the responsibility for action would be left in the air.

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 37 leave out 'the service' and insert

'or in connection with the administration'.

Order. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is under a misapprehension. He can speak only to Amendment No. 8, which I gather is a probing amendment. All the other amendments dealing with Members' salaries are out of order.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we can discuss the matter on a point of order.

I should have liked to help the hon. Member and the House. I have leant over backwards in an effort to do so.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. But if you look up Hansard you will see that I was careful not to say that the Clerks of the House determine what is in order and what is not. I was careful not to suggest that that was not your prerogative.

The hon. Member is correct. But he will also know that since he has not succeeded in getting the salaries of Members included on the Order Paper he is not able to debate the matter. That is all that I am telling him. He must confine himself to what is before the House.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. We have had the opportunity of making the relevant point.

"For the year 1979–80 and each subsequent financial year the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year of the expenses of the House Departments and, to such extent as the Commission may determine, of any other expenses incurred for the service of the House of Commons."

"To make further provision for the administration of the House of Commons."

"expenses…for the service of the House of Commons"

I wish to be helpful if I can and I therefore quote, as my hon. Friend has quoted, from Clause 3(1) which goes very wide, if that is what the Commission chooses to do, and refers to "or any other expenses". If the Commission so chooses, that could include accommodation, printing and a number of other matters. We are not specifying those matters in the Bill, however, because we believe that that would be premature. This is a matter for the Commission.

My hon. Friend has revealed another slight lacuna in this whole problem. My earlier amendment suggested that the Commission should have upon it a majority belonging at least to the Government party, if not to the Government. My hon. Friend the Minister proposed, and the House accepted, that it should have a majority belonging to the Opposition. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will confirm, as is probably the case, that this Act in effect amends the Standing Orders of the House. I presume that an Act does that since it is obviously superior to the Standing Orders of the House. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Act therefore allows the Commission to propose increases in expenditure without the consent of the Treasury?

"to such extent as the Commission may determine, of any other expenses incurred for the service of the House of Commons."

He does not understand what my hon. Friend is talking about, that is why.

Ex-Treasury Ministers tend to have the same attitude.

It is all gobbledegook.

They all believe that the Treasury should have these powers. Most legislatures throughout the world, including Congress and the European assemblies, determine their own Estimates for their own future expenditure. The question is not decided by the Government for which that legislature is theoretically responsible. That is, in effect, what is being proposed in this amendment.

The amendment might help to clarify the wording of the clause which to me appears remarkably obscure. I have one or two specific points to raise.

"the service of the House of Commons."

I do not understand what this debate is all about. Clause2—

We are not on Clause 2. We are on Clause 3.

I know—but listen, thickhead. Clause 2 relates to what are the functions of the Commission. Clause 1 sets up the Commission. Clause 2 is concerned with the functions of the Commission, and Clause 3 contains the financial provisions to enable it to carry out its functions. With great respect to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—I think that I understand what he is trying to say—the first part of Clause 2 says:

"The Commission shall appoint all staff in the House Departments, and shall determine their numbers and their remuneration and other terms and conditions of service."

Perhaps I may seek to clarify the point about which I am concerned. I understand very well that Clause 3 must be related to Clause 2 but, none the less, that is precisely what the amendment is about, as I understand it. Clause 3 says

"for the service of the House of Commons."

"the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year."

I do not think that anybody has ever tried to conceal the fact that as far as the financial independence of the House of Commons is concerned the changes are quite modest. There is a certain vagueness about the present situation, and I readily concede that. How does one define an expense? How does one define what might be capital expenditure? Where does the Treasury fit into the new arrangements?

I am sure that my hon. Friend may be right. He also may be wrong. Will he answer a simple question? Does he agree with me that the courts will have to determine the matter, and will he say that the House of Commons Commission would need legal personality in order to secure a declaration from the courts that the Commission is right and the Treasury is wrong, if the Treasury and the Commission happened to disagree?

I suppose that, ultimately, everything could be discussed and decided in the courts, but I do not envisage that situation ever arising. I should have thought that we had made it fairly clear in Clause 3(1) that the Commission had considerable powers over presenting its Estimates on any expense that it considered justifiable and legitimate. I believe that that is as far as we should go today.

But in 150 years—that is how long the last Commission lasted—it is just possible that the Commission at some time might disagree with the Treasury over what its powers were. I put it no higher than that. It is just possible that in 150 years it might disagree with the Treasury. If it did, my hon. Friend says that he does not think that the matter would be taken to court. He may, again, be right about that. How does he suggest that this vague set of words would be adjudicated upon?

I would suggest that the only way in which this could work would be for discussions to take place in the normal way. This goes on all the time between Departments and the Treasury over demands for money. I should have thought that there was no other way in which one could do this and that there would be a Treasury involvement in public expenditure. There is a Treasury involvement.

Is not the answer that in fact as the Bill is drafted the Commission will have power to do virtually whatever it believes right in the interests of the House, but, nevertheless, it would be prudent, as the Minister said, for the Commission to consult the Treasury? As the Bill is drawn, the Commission has the absolute right to do as it pleases.

The hon. Gentleman has put it far better than I had done. That is exactly the situation as I understand it and I think that the House could take the view that this is as far as we could go.

On the broad point, my hon. Friend has used the arguments that he used in Standing Committee, saying that this was premature because the Commission had not considered it. Surely this is an argument, is it not, which could be used against almost any change. For instance, was it not an argument which could have been used in relation to some other changes in the Bill in Standing Committee? Clearly, the House must make up its mind how it wants this place administered.

I gave assurances upstairs that we would be requesting the Commission—and I can put it no stronger—to take a very early look at some of the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred. Printing is one of them, and others think that the Catering Department and its future should be another. We gave that assurance. I cannot, and nor would my hon. Friend, I suspect, wish, to give any direction to the Commission. That does, not arise. But we can certainly ask the Commission to look at these matters urgently and to come back to the House if necessary. I would say to my hon. Friend that this Bill gives to the House of Commons independence in the presentation of Estimates within the scope of Clause 3 (1), but as I understand it, it was never intended to take the House of Commons completely outside the general framework of the control of public expenditure. Under the Bill as it stands the Commission has power to include within the scope of its Estimates any expenses related to the service of the House of Commons and we do not see this being any narrower than is proposed in the amendment. On that basis I ask the House to reject it.

I do not consider that a very satisfactory reply. The hon. Gentle man has not answered my second point. It is not good enough to say that this will be a matter of common sense, for if it were all a matter of common sense we would not need the Bill at all.

I have only just taken over the Chair but I understand that the hon. Member has already spoken on this amendment.

I was intervening.

The hon. Gentleman may speak if he asks leave of the House, and if it is granted I shall allow him to continue.

May I ask leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I feel it right that one should have an answer on the highly technical point I have raised? This is not a matter of partisan debate in any way. I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to press that point.

"shall prepare and lay an estimate before the House"

I can deal with the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman more easily than with the first. It is my understanding that it will come from and be presented by the Commission.

It is very difficult on Report to make this kind of point. I am not unaware of the point that has been made by the hon. Gentleman but the first part of his reply is quite inconsistent with the second part. If the Commission is to lay the Estimate before the House, that overrides the long-standing tradition, going back I believe to the year 1500 if not to 1300, that it can be done only by the Government. We should know whether the Commission is to be allowed to present Estimates to the House or whether only the Government may do so.

The Commission may do so.

When I intervened I was concerned about the general position of the Refreshment Department and I am glad that my hon. Friend gave us the assurance he gave that he and the Government want the Commission to look at this Department. The House should bear in mind that we have already had a full inquiry into this Department under my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), which recommended, after considerable investigation, that it should be a separate Department. Unless considerable action has been taken since that report was produced there is a need for a tremendous amount of change in that Department, as recommended in the report. There is a need for an improvement in the terms and conditions of service of the staff there.

If hon. Gentlemen who have raised queries about the Commission and its responsibility will take it from me, my opinion is that the Commission will be in charge, like a Government Department preparing its Estimates, but it will not be able to authorise them. The Government will have control over that. That is my impression.

Let us be clear that under the wording in the Bill it will have to be the Commission and not a Treasury officer who comes to present Estimates. I do not see anything abnormal in that. It still has to go through Parliament. It may he said that 700 years a Treasury Minister has had to do it, but I have no objection to the Commission doing it, for it would probably do it better than a Treasury Minister.

rose—

My hon. Friend has already spoken.

My right hon. Friend was only Chief Whip. He forgets Standing Order No. 55. You do not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

What do I not forget?

Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), you do not forget Standing Order No. 55, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We should get this point absolutely clear if we can. If I have muddied the water, I apologise to all concerned. I take my guidance from subsection (1), which says clearly:

"the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year of the expenses of the House Departments and, to such extent as the Commission may determine, of any other expenses incurred for the service of the House"

It does not say that that Estimate may be an increase on the preceding year. That is the point that is being made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).

I do not think that I suggested—if I did, I was wrong—that the Commission had the power to authorise that increase. What I am saying is that it has the power to prepare and to present the Estimate and that the matter will be subject to the usual discussions.

The confusion is worse confounded. Not even the Treasury has the power to authorise it. Only this House has that power. The real question is, can it come before the House without the Treasury's consent? My hon. Friend is conspicuously evading answering that question. It may be that he does not know the answer. If that is so, why is he not honest enough to say so? He has been asked the question from both sides of the House. It is a very simple one. The Bill says:

"the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year of the expenses of the House"—