asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to discuss the neutron bomb in the NATO nuclear planning group.

The ministerial meetings of NATO's nuclear planning group discuss plans and programmes for the maintenance of the Alliance's nuclear forces as a whole. The next meeting is due to take place in the spring. I see no reason, however, to anticipate the enhanced radiation weapon being on the agenda.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that reply and put it on the agenda? Will he try to persuade his American allies particularly that they should not be waiting for a suitable moment to announce that they are going ahead with this bomb but should be mak- ing capital out of rejecting completely any development of the bomb and challenging Eastern Europe to reject equally obnoxious weapons?

The American President has made very clear that, in deciding not to produce the warhead or to deploy it at this stage, he is seeking reciprocal renunciations from the Soviet Union and its allies. So far, these have not been forthcoming. This has been publicly stated on many occasions.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the West suffered a major propaganda defeat over this weapon? What is he personally doing to readjust the balance? Will he remind the House of the great predominance of Soviet armour on the central front?

It is well understood that the decision whether to produce the weapon is essentially one for the United States President although he has undertaken to consult NATO before reaching such a decision.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real difficulty is the strength of the Russian tank armour on the central front? Until the Russians are prepared to thin that out, there will be further discussion about the need to take action to offset the preponderance of the Russian tank armour.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the threat posed by the substantial tank forces of the Warsaw Pact. As I have said, the American President's line, which we have supported, is that he should seek reciprocal arrangements from the Warsaw Pact before reaching a final decision on this matter.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this is the only weapon, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) said, capable of dealing with the Russian tank threat? Is he also aware that this does not affect American defence at all? It is entirely necessary for NATO for its own protection. When he meets the President, will the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade him that it is absolutely essential that we have this weapon.

I think it would be going too far to say that the weapon was absolutely essential or, on the other hand, that it was the only means of dealing with possible attack by tanks. It was, however, designed for this specific purpose, not least to restrict the area of damage to forces and civilians in the vicinity.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce details of the outcome of his review of low-flying areas.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) on 12th December 1978.

Is the Minister aware that the Press Publicity during the Christmas Recess for an extension of low-flying areas was welcome in my constituency? Continued efforts in this direction will be welcomed if it is demonstrated that a burden shared can be a burden halved. Those areas which have borne a heavy proportion of this essential training are entitled to expect the rest of the country to accept some of it as well.

The revised low-flying system is designed to do two things —first, and primarily, to ensure that the RAF has the right facilities to train in order to perform its role in protecting this country and maintaining the NATO alliance defence posture; secondly, to try to reallocate flying so that the burden is fairly shared throughout the United Kingdom.

Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of constituents of mine in West Gloucestershire for the reasonable attitude that he has taken on this matter? Is the new scheme fully operational and can areas such as North Gloucestershire expect a significance diminution in low flying?

I should not like to raise any false hopes that there will be significant relaxation of the low-flying activities in any particular area, but I reciprocate my hon. Friend's kind remarks and would thank him and many other hon. Members for their support of me personally and of the RAF in the carrying out of this very intense and necessary activity.

Will the Minister consider using low-flying aircraft to disperse secondary pickets?

It is not the practice of the Royal Air Force to respond to any such suggestions from the hon. Member. The RAF, like all the Armed Forces, stands ready to obey the lawful orders of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to maintain the British nuclear deterrent after the present generation of nuclear weaponry ceases to be operational.

The time has not yet arrived for matters to be settled over what should happen after the Polaris force is eventually phased out of service.

Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that neither the expenditure incurred on nuclear weapons nor nuclear tests carried out in recent years involve any departure from the pledge in the last Labour Party manifesto to the effect that we shall not embark upon a new generation of strategic nuclear weapons?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government's position is that we are keeping effective the existing Polaris force but we have no plans for a successor generation.

If we are not to have a new nuclear deterrent, and as the right hon. Gentleman said the other day that we shall not go in for cruise missile technology, can he explain how we shall counter the newly deployed Russian SS18, 19 and 20?

As the hon. Member knows, the plans for deterrents rely not entirely on our own forces but partly on NATO. He will not expect me to go into matters of targeting, and so on.

Would not either a new Polaris fleet or the cruise missile system, on which some preliminary contracts and expenditure are now taking place, flout the pledge referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens)? Would it not be wiser to follow the example of Canada, which has recently divested itself of all its nuclear weapons?

So far as I am aware, Canada never had nuclear weapons under her own national control, but, as I have explained a number of times to my hon. Friend, the studies are being undertaken so that we can participate in an informed way in the discussions about strategic arms limitation and theatre nuclear weapon deployments within the alliance. They certainly do not involve any decision or plan to introduce cruise missiles into our own defence.

Not yet.

Is it not an extraordinary admission of negligence by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that they continually say in this House that they have no plans for the succcession? Does not the Secretary of State agree that the research and development time for a new system is now already longer than the expected life of the existing system? Is he trying to let the whole thing go by default?

I do not accept that there is any negligence or any need. If—I underline the word "if "—it were decided at a later date to go for further nuclear weapons, there would be time to go ahead with the programme. But the present position is that we have no such plans.

In view of my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of that position, exactly how long does he expect the present generation to last?

We are confident that the present generation will last until the early 1990s.

Does the Secretary of State realise that we regard his failure to have any plans not as negligence but merely as a prudent recognition of the fact that he will not be in office to carry them out?

The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his little bit of fun. I prefer to await events.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in December.

At that meeting on 5th and 6th December 1978 NATO Defence Ministers reiterated their concern at the growing military capabilities of the Warsaw Pact. They recognised that in the absence of equitable arms control and disarmament agreements, a satisfactory military balance could be assured only by greater efforts to modernise and strengthen the military capacity of the Alliance, and they undertook to take all possible steps to bring about the necessary improvements in their contributions to its deterrent and defence capabilities.

In the informal session, did not US Defence Secretary Brown warn against the likelihood of the sale of Harriers to China, as imperilling both SALT and detente? Secondly, if the Americans and the Germans can secure industrial contracts with China while refusing military contracts, why cannot we do the same?

It is not usual to discuss what may or may not have taken place within the NATO ministerial meetings, but to avoid any misunderstanding and to make it clear I can say that the question of the supply of arms, or, indeed, any other trade with China, was not discussed at all.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last summer he gave the House an undertaking that by the time of the next NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels, forecast for December, there would no longer be any of the more than 10 per cent. of British Army of the Rhine's Chieftain tank force in mothballs? Has he been able to honour that undertaking? Can he say that they are now all fully operational?

I cannot without notice give an answer about a specific number of tanks. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to meet the Romanian Defence Minister in the near future. Mr. Mulley: I have no such plans.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Romanian arms expenditure is $ 43 per head of population, while ours is $239 per head? In view of this and of the fact that the Romanian President has recently successfully resisted pressure from the Warsaw Pact to increase his country's defence expenditure, on the ground that his country cannot afford it, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be helpful to the British people if he consulted his opposite number in Romania to discover how they worked this remarkable and beneficial trick?

My hon. Friend should be a little cautious about comparing defence expenditure of Warsaw Pact countries on the published figures. One of the difficulties that we have tried to resolve in the United Nations is to get some common basis on which defence expenditures can be compared. However, of course I agree with my hon. Friend, as was agreed when the Prime Minister and the President of Romania met in the summer, that we have a common interest in lessening military confrontation and promoting disarmament. But it would not be helpful for me to get involved in internal discussions within the Warsaw Pact.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relatively independent line being taken by the Romanian Government is one of the most encouraging things which has happened since the armed camps were established in Europe at the end of the war? Is it asking too much that there might one day be some reciprocal gesture by one of the NATO countries—preferably Britain?

I agree that decisions by the Warsaw Pact not to increase defence expenditure are to be welcomed. But before coming to a comparative judgment my hon. Friend should consider the disparity between the Warsaw Pact capabilities and those of the NATO Alliance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of air defence variants of the Tornado and the contracted delivery date when the order was first placed by the Royal Air Force; what is the number now on order; and when delivery will be completed.

Three ADV development aircraft are under construction, but no production orders have yet been placed. We still intend to order 165 ADV aircraft, the delivery of which should be completed towards the end of the 1980s.

Does the Minister accept the importance of the early delivery of these aircraft in order to back up the capability of the Royal Air Force? In particular, does he accept that until these aircraft are delivered in their full complement, effectively there will be an air defence gap in our northern approaches? Does he accept that the production and full delivery of the aircraft should receive the Minister's earliest attention, in view of the statement during last year's defence debate that difficulties were being encountered in the production and delivery of the Tornado?

I do not accept that there will be a gap of the kind indicated by the hon. Member. We are confident that the Lightnings and the Phantoms will be fully operational until the ADVs arrive. But I accept the tenor of the remainder of the hon. Member's remarks. It is important to ensure that delivery takes place as soon as possible. Despite the difficulties that have been encountered, the in-service dates are acceptable to the RAF.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what extra expenditure he expects his Department to incur as a result of the sanctions imposed upon the Ford Motor Company Ltd.

None, Sir.

I accept that this matter is now of academic interest only, thank goodness. But does the Minister agree that if he had had to pay only £ 1 extra to purchase alternative cars to Ford cars, the effect would have been to create further inflation?

I am obliged to the hon. Member. As he said, this is a highly hypothetical question. I do not believe in giving hypothetical answers.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence contracts have been advertised in the EEC Official Journal since the EEC directive 72/62/EEC came into force on 1st July 1978; and how many have been awarded outside the United Kingdom.

Fifty-eight and five respectively.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it can be damaging to our textile industry when contracts are lost in this way? Would it not be far better, since other EEC members are not complying with the directive, for us to cease advertising until everybody comes into line?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the effect on certain British industries. I cannot accept that the remedy is for us to break the rules. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said as recently as November, the present situation is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The Government are urging the Commissioners to prepare immediate remedial measures. If necessary we shall press our case in the Council or even take legal action.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the level of personnel in the RAF is currently in accord with the forecast contained in the defence review.

The current strength of the RAF is about 86,000. This compares with a strength of 82,000 which was given in the 1975 statement on the Defence Estimates as the forecast manpower levels resulting from the defence review.

Is my hon. Friend completely satisfied that he and hon. Members are sufficiently informed about the upward variation in the level of recruitment to the RAF, which is not contained in the defence review?

We are always happy to answer any Question tabled by an hon. Member. The more information is requested the more information will be given.

the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department makes of the facilities required to switch a proportion of production for armaments to peaceful purposes.

Our industrial and support capabilities are currently fully utilised and I expect that to remain the case for the foreseeable future. There would consequently not appear to be any need at present to study what might be the implications of a programme of conversion.

From my right hon. Friend's answer does it not appear that the Ministry of Defence does not devote any of its considerable resources to examining the possibility of switching from production for mass or minor extermination to peaceful purposes? If the Minister is really serious about implementing the Labour Party policy of reducing expenditure on defence, surely even a tiny proportion of the Department's resources should be devoted to assessing the necessity and possibility of switching to peaceful production. Should the Government not examine, for instance, the important initiative by the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards' combine? Should not the Ministry, as a gesture of support for the Labour Party, at least examine that proposal.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Ministry of Defence is well aware of the proposals of the Lucas shop stewards' combine. The Department of Industry, in which my hon. Friend has had experience, has been examining those proposals and encouraging the management and staff of Lucas to discuss them.

If it is easy to generate production for peaceful purposes why, after the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was in office for several years, are there still nearly 1.4 million unemployed?

Many of us deplore the extent to which less developed countries spend such wealth as they have on weapons for military purposes, but at the recent United Nations special meeting on disarmament, most of the resistance to proposals for reducing global sales of arms came from the less developed countries. It is sad, but it is a fact.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only serious obstacle to a large reduction in arms expenditure by this country is the overwhelming and increasing superiority of the Russian armed forces in Europe, which can be explained only by a potentially aggressive intent?

I do not wish to speculate about the intentions of the Soviet Union in the terms used by my hon. Friend. But it certainly is true that we have our present defence bill because of the situation behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe. Britain, with others, has taken the lead in trying to negotiate mutual and balanced force reductions. If we can achieve them, there is hope that we can reduce the arms bill, which must be in the interests of everybody.

Is not the reason for the arms bill to maintain peace without surrender?

There is nothing that I can usefully add to what I have already said.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the next report from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

The timing of the report is strictly a matter for the review body, but as in previous years I would expect the report to be presented to the Prime Minister some time in March.

At a time when the Armed Forces are standing by once again to protect the community from the effects of industrial action, may we have an assurance that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body will be free to make a recommendation for an increase in pay which is well above 5 per cent.? May we have an assurance that the review will be treated by the Government as a special case?

I cannot anticipate the review body's recommendations or the Government's considerations of them. But I repeat the assurance on behalf of the Government which I made last May and which has been made in similar terms by the Prime Minister, that the Armed Forces will have a pay increase in April which will consist broadly of half the amount required to bring them up to the full military salary for April 1978 together with whatever amount is required to update the award to April 1979. Clearly that will be much in excess of 5 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to achieve decent pay and conditions for the Armed Forces is to allow them to join trade unions, as in other NATO countries? Opposition Members laugh, but they object to what is happening.

I do not believe that that is the only way to deal with the matter. At this time priority should be given to restoring full comparability by April of next year. Any change in the system that appears to circumvent or throw doubt upon the commitment, which the Government intend to honour, would be regretted.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish the pay review undertaken by the review body of the Armed Forces? Does he expect that work to be completed either before or after the publication of the Armed Forces pay review?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. There is no separate section of the Armed Forces undertaking a pay review. That work is done by the pay review body. I have asked that research be undertaken and consideration given within all three Services to the post-April 1980 situation. That will include the question whether the military salary in its present form and other such matters should be treated in future as they are treated now. I shall consider later whether it would be appropriate to publish the findings. That issue will not be concluded before the April pay date.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what definitions are in use in his Department for (a) defensive weapon and (b) an offensive weapon.

No formal definitions are in use.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the reason why there are no formal definitions is that it is impossible adequately to distinguish between an offensive and a defensive weapon? Will he draw that difficulty to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who only last November described to the House the Harrier jump-jet as a defensive piece of equipment? Surely the plain fact is that that jet will give China an offensive capability against many of its dozen neighbours.

I think that my hon. Friend well understands that it is extremely difficult in most instances, with few exceptions, to say that weapons are wholly defensive or offensive. The answer depends entirely on the circumstances and the intention of their use. The Harrier is essentially a short-range tactical aircraft with a defensive role in support of ground troops. In that sense I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was right in indicating that it was designed for, and would most likely be used in, that defensive role.

We have heard the voices of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends echoing the line of the Kremlin, but is it not a fact that the Harrier's operational range is between 100 and 200 miles? Is it not a fact that the problem for the Chinese is the huge Soviet build-up on their frontiers? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no other weapon that could possibly compensate the Chinese for the massive military superiority that the Soviet Union possesses and with which it threatens China on its frontier?

The hon. Gentleman does not strengthen his case by making allegations about my hon. Friends. That is not helpful. The Harrier's pay load and range are essential for the battlefield rather than for long-range operations. It is not for me to determine the best defences for the People's Republic of China.

Does my right hon. Friend regard tanks as offensive or defensive weapons? As it is claimed that the Soviet forces have a superiority in tanks, I imagine that we regard them as offensive weapons. If that is so, why were the British Government prepared to sell to the Shah of Iran more tanks than are in the possession of the British Army?

The tank is a good example of the great difficulty of categorising weapons. One of the best ways of countering an attack by enemy tanks is by sending one's own tanks into the battlefield against them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the forces of the NATO Alliance have been increasing or decreasing in strength relative to those of the Warsaw Pact.

In recent years trends in the balance of conventional military forces between NATO and the Warsaw Pact have been moving to NATO's disadvantage. Until realistic measures of arms control and disarmament can be achieved, NATO is determined to meet the challenge of the Warsaw Pact military build-up by such means as the long-term defence programme. This is a major cooperative undertaking designed to adapt the alliance's defence posture to meet the needs of the 1980s.

Does that mean that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to give their full weight to all measures designed to ensure that the NATO forces again reach the same level of strength as those of the Warsaw Pact?

As has been stated on many occasions, to sustain the NATO policy of deterrence it is not necessary to match the Warsaw Pact's capability weapon by weapon. Clearly it is necessary, in the view of our allies and ourselves, that the long-term defence progamme is operated and supported to the full. It is a matter not only of introducing extra resources but of assigning such resources as are available to the best use. We are fully operating and fully supporting the long-term defence programme.

What does my right hon. Friend think of the statement issued by the Warsaw Pact countries after their recent meeting in which they suggested that they were keen to negotiate a reduction in the level of arms, especially the number of tanks and the personnel that they have on the frontier facing West Germany?

I naturally welcome such intentions and I hope that they will bear fruit. As my hon. Friend knows, the Warsaw Pact and NATO countries concerned have been trying for a long time in Vienna to reach exactly that sort of agreement.

In view of the recent disclosure in the United States that a quarter of the Soviet ground military strength is now stationed along the Chinese border or the eastern border, and as it is known that many American forces are not assigned to NATO, how are these relative factors taken into account in assessing the comparable strength of NATO as opposed to the strength of the Warsaw Pact countries?

For the purpose of assessment we depend on intelligence sources. However, there is no doubt that the Warsaw Pact commands in Europe a considerable military capability.

As my right hon. Friend is aware, some countries in the Warsaw Pact—for example, Romania—are not as enthusiastic about the Warsaw Pact as others. Is it not time that we entered into discussions with such countries so as to achieve a reduction and to test the Warsaw Pact countries and their arms build-up? Is he aware that many Labour Members are not enamoured of either the Warsaw Pact or NATO? Is it not time that we had a distinctive Labour Party Socialist policy to deal with these matters?

I think that my hon. Friend will realise, on reflection, that these matters cannot be dealt with bilaterally and that it is essential that the multilateral character of disarmament negotiations is preserved. In Vienna, for about five years we have been trying to achieve mutual force reductions.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the enthusiasts for the Common Market have suddenly started introducing the defence element into the Common Market debate? Will he confirm that the Treaty of Rome has nothing to do with defence?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the Treaty of Rome on many occasions. It is rather surprising that he should wish me to confirm that it has nothing to do with defence. As I recall from my last reading of the treaty, which was a long time ago, it contains no reference to defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for RAF Ely; and if he will make a statement.

As successive defence White Papers have made clear, the Ministry of Defence has accepted the need to close one Royal Air Force hospital. The choice lies between RAF Ely and RAF Nocton Hall, and I shall announce a decision in due course. Closure, however, could not take place before 1982 at the earliest.

Will the Minister accept that the hospital at Ely, which has the freedom of the city, has become an integral part of the life of my constituency and that any move to deprive the people of South Cambridgeshire of the great service of that hospital will be infinitely regretted?

I accept without reservation that RAF stations and hospitals are welcomed in all the communities in which they are situated. We shall take very great care before coming to a final decision on the matter.

I support the plea of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). May I remind the Minister that there is in that part of the world probably as large an RAF contingent as can be found in any other part of the country and that the RAF hospital not only has to serve the RAF personnel and their families, but voluntarily helps many of my civilian constituents?

I am very well aware of the substantial part that the RAF hospital at Ely plays in the local community. That is why we are being very careful in our evaluation of this difficult decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature and purpose of the recent United Kingdom underground nuclear test; and if he will undertake to abandon such tests.

The test was required in order to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear weapons. A unilateral decision on our part to halt nuclear testing while negotiations for a verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty are proceeding would not be in our interests, nor improve the prospects of an early conclusion to the negotiations.

Can my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that it is not the real object of the tests to extend into a new generation of nuclear weapons after 1990 in breach of Labour Party policy and Government undertakings in this matter?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the tests are not designed to give us a successor to the present Polaris force.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reassurance is the most shameful thing that he has said in the House this afternoon?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the latest position regarding the supply of Harrier jet aircraft to China.

The Government are ready to enter into negotiations for the sale of the Harrier aircraft to China as part of a balanced trade relationship.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the House will welcome the Government's decision to allow the sale of the Harrier to China? Does his reply mean that the sale is to be dependent on the Chinese agreeing to buy from us a certain quantity of civilian goods as well, and, if so, is that wise?

The decision is that negotiations should begin between British Aerospace and the Chinese Government. The final decision will depend on the outcome of those negotiations. It is right that our trading relationship with China should not be simply as a seller of arms, but should be part of a much wider relationship, and that is the policy which the Government seek to pursue.

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the decision on the sale of Harriers will be determined by British needs and not by threats from the Soviet Union?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we shall take the decision in the best interests, as we see them, of our nation and will not be influenced one way or the other by outside interests.

Does not the Secretary of State understand that the method that the Government have chosen to follow in this matter is more appropriate to a Middle Eastern suq than the best way of doing business with the Chinese? Does he not understand that he is far more likely to get the trade that he and the whole House seek if he makes a clear decision and completes negotiations over the sale of the Harriers first? We shall then find that other trade will follow.

I have already suggested to the hon. Gentleman that his choice of language is sometimes not helpful to his case and he has just given us another example of that. I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in the Harrier, but he ought to know that a number of trade missions from China have visited this country to look at a wide range of civil, as well as military, projects. Our firms and industries are in close touch with the Chinese Government and are negotiating over a whole range of matters. It is right that these things should go along together.

Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the fact that the new leadership of China includes the people who opposed the Maoist approach to the Soviet Union and that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the new leadership may move towards a new rapprochement with the Soviet Union? The Conservative Party and some members of the Government Front Bench could get a great surprise in the next year or two when that development occurs, as it undoubtedly will. Mr. Mulley: I cannot follow my hon. Friend, because I cannot predict the future with the assurance that he appears able to command.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 16th January.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

The Prime Minister will be aware that on Monday the House is to be lobbied by health workers, among others, during the course of a one-day strike. Will the right hon. Gentleman use Question Time today to declare that it would be deplorable for any hon. Member to agree to meet a striker whose presence here was inflicting harm on patients and that the House should boycott the mass lobby unless there is a guarantee that at least emergency ambulance services are being maintained in every part of this country?

I would not care to give guidance to individual hon. Members who will take their own responsibility on what delegations they meet, but I certainly agree entirely with the trade union concerned in this matter that it will be a disgrace if emergency ambulance services are left unattended on Monday. That is the view of the union. I wholly support it and ask the House to endorse it.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to everyone he meets today that the Opposition have already chickened out of today's debate by tabling the feeble motion that we should go home at 10 o'clock? Will he also indicate that many of us on this side of the House believe that a basic wage of £65 a week is a reasonable demand by lorry drivers and that, if the Opposition had had the guts to table a motion urging the road hauliers to settle on that basis, a number of us would have supported it?

No doubt we shall hear the views of the Opposition on the pay claims that are in the pipeline.

You will be lucky, Jim.

Well, hope that we shall hear their view and their attitude to the Government's position which I hope to develop later. I do not think that we should start the debate during Question Time. As regards the nature of the Opposition's approach, I am grateful to them for giving a Supply Day. They have some at their command and I thank them for providing one today. It is, of course, for them to decide what motion to table.

When meeting ministerial colleagues, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to meet the Minister responsible for the water industry in this country to make sure that he is acquainted with the situation in my constituency and surrounding constituencies where thousands of homes have no water and the 1 million homes that are receiving water are getting water that may be contaminated? Since that contamination is due to the non-flushing of filters, and since the flushing of filters is not a highly technical job, what does the Prime Minister propose to do about it?

I am aware that there is serious difficulty in the North-West because of the breakdown of supplies—again as a result of unofficial action, which has been deplored by the union concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is in touch with the area water authority, which is doing its best to ensure that water supplies are resumed. As official discussions on the pay claim are to take place on Thursday, I believe that it is in the best interests of residents in the North-West that the men who have taken the initiative into their own hands should go back to work and allow the negotiations to take place.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will endorse his plea to the London ambulance men that they should at the very least maintain an emergency service next Monday? What contingency planning are the Government doing in case that plea is unsuccessful? Are the Government contemplating using the Armed Forces in this emergency?

I am not able to give a detailed reply to the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State for Social Services is going into this matter in detail and I am sure that he will be glad to acquaint the House with his findings in due course, if necessary.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 16th January.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner).

Without wishing to embark upon the main debate today, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give the House some factual information? In his engagements today—and, indeed, in any of his engagements since last August—has he heard from the TUC, the CBI or anybody, including the Leader of the Opposition, an alternative to the Government's pay policy that would be consistent with the object of keeping down inflation?

In view of the nature of the supplementary questions so far, it seems to me that everybody—and that certainly includes myself—is anxious to get on with the debate set down for today.

Will the Prime Minister use this engagement to say whether he believes that the law of the land is being upheld and enforced in relation to intimidatory picketing?

No, Sir, not this engagement—the next one.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 16th January.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner).

During this afternoon will my right hon. Friend ponder the statement by a trade union leader that his members do not understand macroeconomics? Will he also ponder the opinion, given on television last night by a picket, that all this talk of wages affecting inflation is so much bluff? Is there not still a serious deficiency in understanding the nature of our economic difficulties? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should reconsider the use of public service advertising in order to get the proper message across in the national interest.

Yes, Sir. I think that there is still considerable misunderstanding and a failure to appreciate the relationship between excessive wage settlements and inflation. I believe that the message has got across in general but not in particular, although I am bound to say to Conservative Members who are now interrupting that some of the Right-wing stewards as well as the Left-wing stewards who are leading some of these official strikes are only practising what the Opposition preach.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the opportunity so far today to discuss with the Attorney-General the exact legal position concerning secondary picketing? Will the Prime Minister describe what steps he has already introduced to stop intimidation, and will he give an assurance to the House that he will make a full statement about this during the course of the forthcoming debate?

Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman will await the forthcoming debate. I will not answer a question on the law of picketing. I have prepared a very careful statement that I shall make during the course of the debate and I do not intend to anticipate it.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that his Government's counter-inflation policies all have one thing in common, and that is that they have failed to prevent prices from more than doubling in under five years of his Government? Will he, during the course of his engagements today, make an abject apology to the people of this country for the hardship that he has inflicted on housewives and others?

The causes of the halving of the value of money are a matter of history and dispute. The hon. Lady holds one view and I certainly hold another. I somehow feel that she cannot escape and that the last Administration, of which she was a member, cannot escape total responsibility for what happened in the middle years of the 1970s.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that the thinking of the Conservative Party in this difficult situation is nostalgically heading back towards the Industrial Relations Act 1971? Will he agree with me that, if the Conservative Party were in power, the imagination would boggle at the thought of what would be happening as the working people of this country realised that the Conservatives were hopeless in grappling with the present difficulties?

I think that we should learn from history and remember it. There is no doubt that the Industrial Relations Act did not have the impact that the Conservative Administration hoped it would have at the time. I am not sure whether the Opposition are now heading back to it. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition says one thing and then her spokesman on employment runs around like the White Rabbit, trying to tell everybody that the right hon. Lady did not really mean what she said.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Heaton Chapel.

I have at present no plans to visit Heaton Chapel.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the bitterness of many of my residents in Heaton Chapel towards the North-West water authority? Is he, in particular, aware that the authority has very bad industrial relations, that it pays very low wages to many of its employees, and that it has consistently put up charges? Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the system of rate rebate to water service charges very quickly to relieve some of the hardships? Finally, will he agree that the North-West water authority requires reorganising?

With the present pressures coming on public expenditure —which will be even higher if some of the present wage claims go through —I certainly could not undertake that we would increase public expenditure in order to introduce rebates on water service charges over and above the present arrangements. I think that it would be better if we tried to give that sort of help primarily through the social security system.

Order. I take it that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) will link his supplementary question to Heaton Chapel.

No.

asked the Prime Minister if he plans to make an official visit to Barking.

I have at present no plans to visit Barking.

If the Prime Minister were to visit Barking or many of the places where secondary picketing has taken place, would he not feel that he would have been wiser to support the Bill which he and I designed last year to make it necessary for official pickets to be licensed, in accordance with his suggestion at the time of the Grunwick dispute? If he had helped in that proposed legislation last year, we would not be in the trouble that we are in now.

I am not very much in favour of secondary picketing, as I shall explain later, but neither do I like being a secondary accomplice to the hon. Gentleman in a Bill that he drew up and in whose preparation I had no part.

May I assure the Prime Minister that if he cares to come to Barking he will be very welcome, as a number of my constituents would like to discuss pay policy with him? If he accepts an invitation, I ask him not to bring with him the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

I really must take exception to this constant coupling of myself with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I am sure that he has a very interesting and felicitous domestic life, on which I congratulate him, but I have no wish to be associated with it in any way at all.