asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Defence Sales Organisation.

The Defence Sales Organisation continues to provide support, assistance and advice to British industry and the Royal ordnance factories on the promotion of overseas sales of defence equipment and associated services.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Defence Sales Organisation will not be used to sell discarded Iranian surplus Chieftain tanks to China? Does he acknowledge that Labour Party policy, which involves a switch from war production to peaceful production, should be implemented by producing a plan for that peaceful transition, in conjunction with the Department of Industry? Does he accept that recent statements by the Pope, for example, heartily endorse Labour Party policies? Can my right hon. Friend make a start by announcing the phased withdrawal of the Defence Sales Organisation?

As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we have, as far as I know, received no request from China for tanks to be sold to them, so that point does not arise. As regards my hon. Friend's more general point, namely, the conversion of defence industries to peaceful production, no one would be happier than Defence Ministers if there were no need to produce military equipment on the present scale. Unfortunately, questions of this sort depend very much on the progress of detente, and for the time being we need such defence production capability as we have in order to equip Her Majesty's Forces.

Does the Minister of State agree that this does not entirely depend on the progress of detente? Should he not point out to his exceedingly ill-informed hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that, under this Government, the number of unemployed is already 1,400,000? Therefore, to stop defence production would merely add to unemployment.

In the past I have given instruction to the right hon. Gentleman's then deputy to the effect that defence production was engaged in for the defence of this country and not as an employment-generating function. I regret to have to repeat that instruction to him.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would appear very strange to the neutral observer if Britain were supplying defence equipment to countries which we helped through the aid programmes of the Ministry of Overseas Development? Will my right hon. Friend liaise with his right hon. Friend to ensure that we do not find ourselves in the profoundly cynical position of following a policy of giving aid to the poorest countries and at the same time of supplying them with sophisticated military equipment?

I see nothing particularly inconsistent in those two activities. As I have said at this Dispatch Box on more than one occasion, I deplore the fact that the less developed countries find it necessary to spend such a large part of their scarce resources on defence equipment. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are totally at one on that. However, the fact remains that they require this equipment, and when they wish to purchase it from us from time to time it produces jobs for our factories rather than the factories of other countries.

Concerning the contract for Iran, why is the Minister so reticent about providing us with details of the contracts at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds, which now look like being lost? Does he recognise the importance of the jobs of the people working there and the need for continuity of production? Will he consider what budget extensions may be necessary to allow the British Army to re-equip with a modern tank in the 1980s?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are seized of the serious implications for the Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds, of the ending of project 4030 for Iran. My right hon. Friend and I have already had discussions with the trade unions involved at national level, and I understand that local discussions are also taking place. I have also taken the initiative with ministerial colleagues in other Departments in attempting to find other work to go to the Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds. I wholly share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is necessary for us to preserve a tank capability at Leeds in order to equip the British Army in the 1980s with what I believe will be one of the finest tanks in the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the work of the Armed Forces in support of the civil power in Northern Ireland.

The Armed Forces' operations in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary continue to meet with success. The security forces have the ability to respond promptly and firmly to changes in the terrorist threat and their operations are contributing to the return to normality in the Province. A recent success was the joint RUC-Army operation in which more than 40 explosive devices were recovered from a house in Belfast.

Does not the mortar attack on Newtownhamilton suggest that, although there has been an improvement in police co-operation across the border, there is need for improved liaison between the security forces of the Republic and the kingdom generally? Can the Minister give any information about the type and origin of the mortars used?

Naturally, the Army seeks to ensure the safety of its bases at all times. Operations are mounted to this end, but it would not be in the interests of security to go into more detail at this stage. I am satisfied that we are doing all that we reasonably can to protect our bases from terrorist attack. I am sure that the House will share by revulsion at this attack, as well as my sympathy with those involved and their relatives. Cross-border co-operation at the present time is better than it has ever been.

Will the Minister, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, do all in his power to rebut unfounded smears and allegations against the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, whether those are made inside or outside this House?

Yes. Some of the more or less slanderous allegations that have been made against the security forces in recent times are most unfortunate.

I join the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in hoping that the smears against the Armed Forces will now stop, but is not my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) right in suggesting that co-operation between our Army in Northern Ireland and the regular forces of the Republic is at a very low state indeed? Is there not room for substantial ministerial action to put this right? Is there any prospect of increased co-operation in the months to come?

As I have said, close links have been established between the police forces on both sides of the border to enable all elements of the security forces to act in concert. This works well. I understand that army-to-army contact is unacceptable to the Irish authorities. In the first place, the roles of the armies are not the same. However, in general, cross-border security co-operation has improved very greatly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the capacity of Her Majesty's forces to defend Royal Air Force airfields against air attack; and whether he proposes additions to the ground-to-air missile defence systems as described in the latest statement on the Defence Estimates.

Our fighter and missile defences present a strong deterrent to hostile aircraft targetted against RAF airfields. The"Statement on Defence Estimates 1979"sets out a number of improvements that are being made to the RAF's ground-to-air missile defence capability.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there remains considerable concern in certain quarters about the capability of defending our airfields by ground-to-air missiles? Is he further aware that the essential point of our defence expenditure is to maintain the credibility of Western defence and that the moment that credibility is challenged or questioned the preservation of the fragile peace that we have becomes at hazard?

We welcome support from Conservative Members, whenever it takes place, for the substantial improvements that the Government have made in our air defence capability.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that 40 years ago this month the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia and that our air defences then were far worse than ever before? Today, together with our allies, they are better than what they were then. Will he bear in mind that in opposition the Tories are always spendthrifts, but in power, parsimonious?

I am well aware of the truth of the latter part of my hon. Friend's comments. Both before the Second World War and since—for instance in 1957—the Conservative Party dismantled and discarded our air defence capability. As I have repeatedly told the House, it is this Administration who have put it back on a proper footing, although a great deal remains to be done if we are to be in a position to meet the increasing Soviet threat.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to announce his decision as to a replacement for the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent after the present deterrent has ended its useful life.

Rodgers asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement defining the role of the United Kingdom independent nuclear weapon and indicating whether it is intended to retain this capacity.

The United Kingdom's nuclear capability must be seen in the context of NATO's strategic and theatre nuclear forces, the central role of which is to deter aggression. This independent contribution also strengthens collective deterrence by providing a second centre of decision-making within NATO, thereby increasing the uncertainties faced by an aggressor.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the useful life of Britain's nuclear deterrent is unlikely to be more than another 14 years? As it is likely that at least 13 years will be required to develop any successor system, is it not extraordinary that there was no mention of this subject in the defence White Paper? Are the Government deliberately trying to stifle debate on this subject because of the opposition they expect from their hon. Friends?

On the contrary, the Government welcome discussion on this and on many other aspects of defence policy. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's timetable. The first question to decide is"whether ". I just recall the fact that the first Polaris submarine was on station within six years of the signing of the agreement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing and widespread opinion in this country that an independent nuclear deterrent in the possession of the United Kingdom is not only morally indefensible but absurdly expensive? Will he give an assurance that, in line with the Labour Party manifesto commitment, we intend to abandon this absurdity, which is simply a prestige symbol and is extremely hazardous to this nation?

I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that in the Labour Party manifesto there was any reference to our abandoning the existing Polaris force. On the contrary, we said that it would be maintained as an effective force. The question whether there should be a successor is, as I have said, one for the future.

Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that he will wake up to the realities of the situation? Will he pledge the Government to ensuring that we shall have a replacement weapon? Reverting to the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), will he remember that it is not much more than 10 years since the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia?

I do not see the immediate connection between the hon. Gentleman's first and last points. Obviously, the question is one for the future and not one for me to settle this afternoon.

My right hon. Friend has been reminded of 1938. He will remember that that was a time when some of my colleagues' predecessors were shouting for arms against Germany and denying the country the means whereby they were obtained. Will he bear in mind that, while not going completely mad on the subject of atomic weapons, we must have suitable weapons, so that if we were left on our own we could provide a deterrent against aggressors?

The Government's policy remains in full support of the NATO Alliance, in which its deterrent posture is based on a triad of conventional, theatre and strategic nuclear weapons.

In view of the sensible remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in his original answer about the value and importance of our strategic nuclear deterrent, what possible argument can there be for not saying that there should now be a replacement for Polaris? Why does not the Minister stand up to his anti-Western Friends below the Gangway?

Anti-war Friends.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman looks under his bed every night for members of the Tribune group. The idea that there is a great argument on this side of the House is erroneous. There are, of course, arguments about priorities in defence, which is right and proper. Most of the arguments of a serious character conducted in this country come from within the Labour movement. The existing force will remain effective into the 1990s. Therefore, any option if it were to be taken now would be premature. I cannot foresee the course of events, though I hope very much that SALT II will be ratified and that it will be followed by further multilateral arms control arrangements. No one can foresee the situation some years from now.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present state of the United Kingdom's arms contracts with Iran; and whether he will make a statement.

The previous Iranian Government informed our ambassador on 6 February that the supply of Shir tanks to Iran and action on certain other defence contracts should be terminated and discontinued. These contracts are therefore being brought to an end and the Iranians are being informed accordingly. We have started to discuss with the new Administration in Iran what action they want us to take as regards other defence contracts.

Will the Secretary of State at least tell the House what back-up plans he has for allowing the British Services to benefit from this unexpected windfall, particularly since he and his right hon. Friends so frequently used the term"pre-financed"in their earlier descriptions of these contracts? This can mean only that the equipment will now come in at a bargain price if we choose to take it ourselves.

On the question of pre-financing, the contracts involved progress payments. There can be no question of our not having to account for the moneys received and the tanks already supplied. It is not a question of a large number of tanks which have been paid for, and there is no question of their being used for the British Army in that context. The Chieftain tank is still an effective weapon. Unless the Army is to re-equip totally with a new tank—one designed for different circumstances from those in Germany, where we need to deploy our own tank force—it is better to have the MBT 80 which we are planning, rather than to try to bring the Shir tanks in at an earlier stage. We are examining these aspects.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the factories which have hitherto relied on Iranian contracts, such as the BAC dynamics group factory at Filton? Can he say whether, if any contracts are available, they will be awarded to those factories to offset any redundancies which result from the cancellation of Iranian orders?

We are in touch with all the firms involved in these contracts. Where possible, as my right hon. Friend said in answer to an earlier question, in consultation with other Departments we are seeking to provide alternative work.

Is it true that the Ministry of Defence placed a number of contracts on behalf of the previous Iranian Government with defence firms in this country, without achieving cover in the form of an order from the Iranian Government of the day?

No, not to my knowledge. In each case there have been proper contractual arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the British defence obligations to Oman.

There are no legal obligations as such, but we second personnel to serve with the Sultan's Armed Forces, and we train Omani personnel in the United Kingdom.

In view of the current situation in the Gulf, are the Government prepared, so far as they can be, to respond to requests for help from Oman?

We shall look with great sympathty on such requests as we may receive. We have, however, to await requests and deal with them when they arrive.

Is my right hon. Friend assured that the quality of the advice which the Government are receiving on the stability of the regime in Oman and the degree of its popular support is of a higher order than that which we recently received on the regime in Iran?

These questions are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. However, I have no reason to doubt that we receive proper advice. It is then for Ministers to deal with that advice.

In recent years, has not Oman been the subject of sustained and unprovoked aggression from South Yemen, encouraged and assisted by the Soviet Union? Has the Secretary of State any reason to imagine that such aggression will not be repeated, especially if the co-operation of Britain with Oman were to cease?

We have no plans to change the present arrangements which, I understand, the Government in Oman wish to continue.

Are British forces in Oman there to defend democracy and democratic values? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is convinced that such values exist there?

The British personnel in Oman, as I said in my initial answer, are seconded. They are not serving in their capacity as members of the British forces. Their role is exclusively to train Omani personnel so that they can gradually take over these responsibilities themselves.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the proposed plan by his Department to store lethal, poisonous and noxious substances on Dartmoor.

We plan to provide a protected compound at Okehampton camp, similar to others which are already in use elsewhere, to facilitate training in a nuclear and chemical environment. Small quantities of toxic materials would be stored in the compound under conditions which would ensure that there was no risk to the Service men or to the public.

I am a member of the Dartmoor Preservation Society. Why is the Minister so intent on extending the military presence into one of the country's unique national parks? How does he square his view with the Government's policy, which is to preserve and protect the national parks at all costs against any incursion?

The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. We are not extending our activities in to the national park. We are doing nothing that has not been done for many years.

Cannot the Government find a safer and more remote area in which to store these materials than one which is frequented by thousands of visitors throughout the summer?

I give my right hon. Friend an absolute assurance that there is no danger at all from the storage of these substances. They are also stored in other areas. The fact that this is a national park does not alter the situation. It is a military training area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that after the withdrawal of HMS"Ark Royal ", the Royal Navy remains able to deal with the potential threat posed by the very large new Soviet warships such as the"Kiev"and"Minsk"which are armed with aircraft and long-range missiles.

Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that, with the support of our NATO allies, we can meet the potential threat.

Does the Minister agree that these new Soviet aircraft carriers, which are twice as large as any ship in the Royal Navy, present a formidable threat to our sea lines of communication? Can he tell the House whether the"Kiev"and the"Minsk"operate in areas of strategic importance to our shipping?

The"Kiev"is at present located north of the Shetlands.

What is it doing there?

The"Minsk"is off the coast of West Africa. With the introduction into service of these ships the Soviet Navy will undoubtedly continue to improve its anti-submarine and anti-surface shipping capability. However, the threat that they pose can be countered by a concerted response from land-based aircraft, together with Royal Navy missile-armed warships and SSNs and, in due course, the Sea Harrier. The Royal Navy, however, will not have to deal in isolation with a potential Soviet threat. It will be able to rely on the support of NATO.

Does my hon. Friend agree that HMS "Ark Royal"represented too many eggs in one basket and that the much smaller Soviet ships such as"Kiev"and"Minsk"are amply counter-balanced by the anti-submarine cruisers?

I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that HMS"Invincible"will be engaged in sea trials this spring and that we shall embark the Sea Harrier for further trials next year.

What assessment has the Minister made of why the Russians are building these large aircraft carriers?

In order to obtain a response to a question on a different policy area the hon. and gallant Gentleman must table a different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of living holders of the Military Medal who received that award prior to 2 September 1939 and also the number of those living who received the same honour subsequent to 2 September 1939.

Approximately 116,000 Military Medals were awarded in the First World War and about 17,000 in the Second World War. I am afraid that I have no means of knowing how many recipients of the medal are still alive.

Will the Minister correct the disgraceful anomaly by which those who won the medal after the outbreak of the last war received a financial reward whereas those who gained the distinction before the outbreak of the last war received no such recognition? Will he examine this and put it right, as it will cost little?

No. The financial benefits associated with the Military Medal were introduced in 1945. The Government of the day decided that the awards could not be back-dated beyond 1939 because it would have been impossible to trace all those who were entitled to payment. That decision has been upheld by successive Governments when the matter has been reconsidered.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the British military contribution to the Central Treaty Organisation in the light of recent developments in the Gulf; and whether he is proposing to review this contribution.

Member countries do not declare forces to CENTO, but have participated in a programme of military exercises and conferences. In view of the decision of Turkey, Iran and Pakistan to withdraw from CENTO the organisation must be considered to be at an end. The exercises which had already been arranged for the remainder of the year will not, therefore, take place.

Does not the rapidity of the collapse of CENTO demonstrate the stupidity of basing our military alliance policies on undemocratic regimes which are completely rejected by many of their peoples when they have an opportunity to assert their rights? Is not there a lesson for us to learn, which we should apply to the rest of the Gulf area?

CENTO served a useful purpose in co-ordinating policies in this area for a number of years, but I agree that it would now be profitless to seek to perpetuate such an alliance.

Will the Secretary of State recognise what incontinent folly it was for previous Labour Governments to decide to withdraw from Aden and the Gulf? Is he aware that the United States is at last awaking from its post-Vietnamese torpor and is proposing to send some presence to the area? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we, as America's ally are alongside the United States, even if only on a small scale?

Because of our size and resources, I do not accept that it was wrong for Britain to withdraw from the posture of a world Power. That was the rationale in successive defence reviews which concentrated our effort on the defence of this country and on support of the NATO Alliance. It would be wrong to think that we could become a world Power of the kind that the right hon. Member has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate cost of the new defence headquarters in Hong Kong; and how much of this cost falls on the British taxpayer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what study he has made of the role and effectiveness of the £7 million forces' headquarters recently opened in Hong Kong; what figures are available for the total defence expenditure on buildings of this type; and if he will make a statement.

As part of the 1975 Hong Kong defence costs agreement, the Ministry of Defence agreed to release the Victoria barracks site to the Hong Kong Government on the understanding that they would provide a new headquarters at no cost to Her Majesty's Government. The cost of the building, which also includes living and recreational facilities, was $HK82 million. There are no plans for similar buildings for the forces elsewhere.

What is the point of maintaining a military garrison in Hong Kong anyway? The place is indefensible against a land attack, and, in the light of the policies of the present Chinese Government, there appears to be no reason to fear such an attack.

In addition to the roles implied for the garrison by my hon. Friend, it also has to deal with illegal immigrants and internal security. The garrison performs extremely valuable roles in those respects.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when our forces are desperately short of money for men and weaponry it is well-nigh criminal to waste it on prestige blocks of this type, which are presumably full of cocktail cabinets and gold-plated toilets for the officers?

My hon. Friend cannot have heard my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). The block was provided at no cost to the British Government. The full cost falls upon the Hong Kong Government's budget.

Will the Minister explain to his hon. Friend that Hong Kong is a British colony and that therefore we have responsibility for the internal security and defence of that territory?

I thought that I had already made that clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Amazon class frigates were fully operational at 1 March 1979.

Four, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that eight Amazon class frigates have been constructed in the last four years? The Minister said that only four of those are operational because of a serious shortage of spares and a 20 per cent. increase in the refit time. Is he aware that captains are taking their ships to sea with some of their equipment not working, rather than risk further delays? What is he going to do to stop that deplorable situation?

The position is not quite as described by the hon. Member. On the date selected for the question four Amazon class frigates were operational. Today, six are operational. Of the four that were not operational on the day selected for the question,"Avenger"was still undertaking operational sea training after refit and"Ambuscade"was in dock because of a defective gearbox. It was repaired on 2 March and became operational on 5 March." Alacrity"was in dock undergoing maintenance. It is due to return to the operational fleet in April 1979." Amazon"was in refit and is due to be completed in May and to return to the operational fleet in July after basic operational sea training.

Can my hon. Friend say anything about a possible successor to the Amazon class?

The type-21 class—which is the Amazon class—was introduced as a general purpose frigate prior to the introduction of the type-22 class, which is intended primarily for anti-submarine warfare. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the type-22 class is coming on stream. Two are undergoing sea trials. In its primary role the type-22 will have a more sophisticated ASW sensor and a wider range of weapon systems than the type-21.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the test firing in February of a Polaris missile.

On 20 February, HMS"Repulse"successfully completed a test firing of a Polaris missile at the Atlantic missile test range whilst submerged some 30 miles off shore. This was a routine firing to test HMS"Repulse"weapons system after her long refit at Rosyth and was in accordance with the long-established practice that, after such refits, our Polaris submarines carry out part of their work-up in the Cape Canaveral area.

Has project"Antelope"now been concluded? Did that project, with its test firing and nuclear tests, play any part in the replacement options to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the danger that if he encourages his staff to go ahead exploring those options he will find that they have taken the replacement decision for him?

I am not sure what was involved in project"Antelope ", which I believe was a code name used a long time ago, but I assure my hon. Friend that this was a routine firing after a refit. It is right that the weapons system should be tested after a refit. None of those test firings involved nuclear devices.

Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's admission, in a parliamentary reply to me at the end of last week, that in the course of the past 18 months about 300 strategic warheads have been deployed by the Soviet Union against Western Europe in the form of over 100 SS-20 mobile intermediate range ballistic missiles, with a destructive potential equal to 15,000 Hiroshima bombs, does he believe that the capacity of this country to deploy a single Polaris submarine is adequate in the circumstances of this massive Soviet build-up?

I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions that we are members of an Alliance. The whole question of the defence of this country, as of all the members of the NATO Alliance, depends on the collective efforts of the alliance. It is totally wrong and misleading of the hon. Gentleman, on the one hand, constantly to state the armed strength of the Warsaw Pact, and, on the other, the national strength of the United Kingdom, as though any possibility of aggression in the future would involve the United Kingdom alone against the Soviet Union.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the age of the aircraft of the Queen's Flight; and if the Government now plan to replace them with modern jet aircraft.

The Andovers of the Queen's Flight entered service in 1964 and the Wessex in 1969. There are no current plans to re-equip the flight with jet aircraft.

Is it right that our Head of State and her family have to fly in 14-year-old turbo-props, when her Ministers fly in modern jet aircraft? Will the Minister get a grip and come forward with sensible plans to re-equip this prestigious Flight?

The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. Ministers use the Queen's Flight when it is available, and Her Majesty uses jet aircraft of the Royal Air Force, notably the VC 10. Many years of good and useful service remain to be taken from the Andovers of the Queen's Flight.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when these aircraft arrive overseas they are universally regarded with affectionate amusement and that they do grave damage to the reputation of British technology? Would it not be in the commercial interests of this country for members of the Royal Family to fly in modern jet aircraft?

The cost of the Queen's Flight falls upon the defence Vote. It costs the defence Vote £1·8 million. With the pressures on air defence and many other matters, it is right and proper that the defence Vote is concentrated upon the defence of the country. To the best of my knowledge, the Royal Family are satisfied with the arangements made by the Royal Air Force. In any long-range flights undertaken by Her Majesty, VC 10s are available and provide a satisfactory and technologically perfect service.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what matters were discussed at the meeting.

I met Dr. Luns for lunch when he visited the United Kingdom on 21 February. We discussed informally a number of issues of current interest to the alliance.

Was not Dr. Luns a member of the Dutch Nazi Party from 1933 to 1936? Should he not be asked to resign, even though he purports that his brother signed him on without his knowledge? Is that not—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I shall take the point of order after questions, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

On a point of order—

Order. This is unnecessary. We take points of order, if possible, after questions.

Is it in order—

Order. The same thing happened last week on the Government side of the House. An hon. Member insisted on putting his point of order.

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, to make unfounded smear allegations against the secretary general of the NATO Alliance, to which we belong?

Hon. Members take responsibility for their own statements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an impertinence—[HON. MEMBERS:"Yes."] I for such a man to come to Britain, as he does continually, and tell us that we must increase our expenditure annually and that we must have a new generation of nuclear deterrents? As for what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) says, what I have said has been admitted in the press.

I have seen in the press the references to which my hon. Friend refers. I understand that these allegations have been made from time to time and that Dr. Luns has repudiated any active part in these organisations. I do not see the relevance of this question to Dr. Luns' recent visit.

asked the Prime Minister when he plans next to meet the Trades Union Congress.

I meet representatives of the TUC from time to time at the National Economic Development Council and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he discuss the importance of the Government's trade deal with the Chinese? Will he seek to allay the fears of the TUC about the supply of Harrier jets to China which, we understand, is an integral part of the deal. Will he say when the deal is to be finalised?

I shall be happy to discuss this matter with representatives of the TUC if they so wish. As I understand it, negotiations are continuing on many matters, including railway equipment, steel mills, and other areas, as a result of the visit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. If agreements on those important orders are concluded—I expect them to be—I expect that negotiations and the prospects for the Harrier will look very fair.

The Prime Minister will doubtless wish to discuss with the TUC the rising rate of inflation. How does he explain the fact that even before this year's pay increases have been able to work through into prices, the rate of inflation, on the Chancellor's chosen basis, has already risen to 13·3 per cent?

I would regard that as a piece of Tory disinformation. The right hon. Lady is bearing me out. As wages work through into the rate of inflation, which they have done since last July and the start of the new wage year, in August, the rate of inflation is likely to increase. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will be happy to know that it will not go back to the levels that existed when she was last in office.

May I make two quick points? The figure of 13·3 per cent. is a piece of Treasury information that was given in a written answer yesterday. As for the inflation rate for the next three years, will the right hon. Gentleman stop making pledges on my behalf?

As the right hon. Lady knows—but would not care to quote—the official retail price index published last Friday revealed the figure of 9·6 per cent. I wonder why she does not quote that figure instead of the response to a carefully planted question designed to produce a certain answer. The right hon. Lady may propose, but I suggest that the electorate disposes.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 20 March.

In addition to my duties in this House I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Will my right hon. Friend give some thought today to the various meetings that he and other Ministers have had on unemployment, especially in the regions? Does he accept that Mersey-side workers—[Interruption.]—contrary to the views expressed by the Opposition Front Bench, are demanding more and not less Government intervention to deal with the problems that face Merseyside? Is he aware that in the private sector 14,000 jobs have been lost and that Government intervention is required to deal with regional unemployment?

The situation on Merseyside is rather different from that of the North-West as a whole. The Northwest is doing a remarkable job in diversifying its industrial structure. Merseyside is a challenge to everyone. It does no service to anybody to decry the position on Merseyside. The figures and studies show that productivity on Merseyside is not very different from that in the rest of the country. We should not give countenance to the damaging myths that are spread about the whole of Merseyside although the area does have special problems.

Will the Prime Minister consider the story that is floating that the Government may attempt to deal with the Scotland Act by referring it to a Select Committee? Is he aware that any attempt to anaesthetise the issue in that way will be totally unacceptable to my hon. Friends and myself?

I do not bother myself with all the stories that float around on these matters. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman waits until I make my statement.

When?

In response to requests from other parties, I propose to make it on Thursday. If I were to correct every misleading story that I read in the press, I should never do anything else.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to talk to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the effect that the civil servants' strike is having on some citizens? Is he aware, for example, that two old-age pensioner constituents of mine are unable to draw their premium bonds to meet bills which they entered into before the strike started? Is he aware that another pensioner is unable to cash her national savings to take a holiday for which she has saved for two years? Is not this appropriation of people's money by Government inefficiency the last straw? What will he do about it?

I have always regarded the strike as totally unnecessary, and I have said so. Those who go on strike do not receive pay while they are not performing their duties. That is the Government's responsibility. I understand that there has been a meeting today between the Lord Privy Seal and the Civil Service National Whitley Council and that negotiations will be resumed on Monday, when I hope that they may come to a conclusion. I say again that the new rates are not due to come into force until 1 April.

As regards unemployment and trade generally, is my right hon. Friend aware that the labour content of our imports far exceeds the labour content of our exports? Although we may now be in surplus financially, we have a labour deficit. Therefore, will he institute an inquiry to ascertain how best we may bring about a labour balance in our overseas trade?

For the last quarter of 1978 our balance of payments was in substantial balance. I have no doubt that it will build up again in 1979. As for the labour content, by which I assume my hon. Friend means the amount of labour that goes into each unit volume of production, I am not aware of his figures. The figures are well worth studying. I am glad to say that Britain's share of world trade increased in 1977. We more than held our own. Despite a less rapid increase in the level of world trade, I believe that the same will be found to be true of 1978.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that on Question No. 2 my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) attempted to draw the attention of the House to the serious unemployment situation on Merseyside. He did so against a barrage of laughter and giggling from the Opposition Benches. Amidst that laughter a number of Government supporters heard a Member of the Opposition, when my hon. Friend referred to the workers on Merseyside, say that there were no workers on Merseyside. Will you, Mr. Speaker, reassure listeners to the debate, if no one else, that that slur on the working people of Merseyside came from a member of the Opposition?

Order. I did not hear the remark.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), when putting a question, was interrupted by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on a point of order. Very reasonably, you have always requested Members of Parliament to put points of order at the end of Question Time. The intervention was made in an attempt to suppress a piece of perfectly fair comment, which, fortunately, is free in the House and should be allowed without interference. Will you draw the attention of extremists such as the hon. Gentleman to the fact that Members of Parliament have a right to put a question, that points or order are normally taken at the end of Question Time, and that this is still a free Parliament, without extremism and suppression from the Right-wing minority in the Tory Party?

Order. Only last week a Government supporter declined to accede to my request to put his point of order at the end of Question Time. I am pleased to say that the House responds overwhelmingly when I ask hon. Members to leave a point of order until after Question Time. That did not happen today and it did not happen last week. I hope that it will happen in future.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not object to the remarks of my hon. Friend, in which he drew attention to the point that I made, but would it be right for hon. Members who want to raise a point of order merely to rise and indicate to you that at the end of Question Time they intend to do so? May I say that I am prepared to repeat what I have said—

Order.

outside the House of Commons.

I rose to intervene before the hon. Gentleman had finished, as I thought he wanted to repeat his remark inside the House and not outside. I apologise.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 March.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden).

Whether the inflation figure be 9·6 per cent. or 13·3 per cent., does the Prime Minister accept that the figure is too high and is rising? Does he also accept that working through the pipeline is the effect of the road hauliers' dispute, during which lost orders and increased costs generally will increase the inflationary spiral? Are not the Government largely responsible as it was they who took off sanctions in that instance?

Now I know how history is made.

The Prime Minister referred to the Civil Service pay dispute. Is he aware that the bulk of the Civil Service in Scotland is proposing to withdraw its labour tomorrow? Is he also aware that he referred to an area of misunderstanding when he mentioned 1 April as being the starting date of the new pay round? Is it clear in the minds of civil servants, or have the Government made a statement to make it clear, that the result of the comparability study will take effect from 1 April and not from some future date?

I shall ask my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal to consider that matter. However, there are still 10 days left in which to negotiate a settlement if the civil servants wish to do so. I understand that they are claiming, with some justification, that during the past two or three years their levels of pay have fallen behind the total emoluments received in private industry and that therefore they have a claim for a substantial amount. That must be worked out over the next 10 days. All I can hope is that if that is proved to be the case, and if there is a staged improvement, everybody else will not use it as another excuse to climb on the ratchet, to go up the escalator once more—and all the other similes that I can think of—which will lead to an increased inflation.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to turn his mind from devolution and economic matters and consider what contribution the Government can make to the International Year of the Child? Will he bear in mind that repeatedly on Fridays in the House my Bill to end the caning of handicapped children has been blocked by Tory Members? Does he agree that this is a disgrace? Will he undertake, on behalf of the Government, to introduce legislation to end this abhorrent practice as soon as possible?

I could not give any undertaking to my hon. Friend on this matter. Private Members' time is basically for private Members.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave your office notice of this matter. I think that you have had notice of a matter that I intended to raise some time ago. It was simply that a few days ago I sought to table a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what the tax incidence was appertaining to the Westminster estate. I was told by your office, no doubt in good faith, that questions on individual tax liability were not permitted. I think that that ruling stems from a time before the House, in its wisdom, decided—I voted against—for the first time to divulge to the EEC authorities and Ministers the tax liability of individual taxpayers. That occurred on a VAT resolution last year. It seems to me in those circumstances that there can no longer be the old objection that there once was to putting questions on such matters. I also raised the concomitant question. I asked the Chancellor whether he would introduce legislation to nationalise—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have already ruled privately with him on this question and that it is quite wrong to repeat in the House the question that I disallowed.