asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the replacement of Polaris.

As I made clear in the House on 12 June, we shall take all the steps necessary to ensure that the Polaris force remains a deterrent to aggression into the 1990s. I shall not, however, be in a position to make any statement about a successor to Polaris until we have given very careful scrutiny to all the possible options.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Polaris is expensive, outdated and deters no one? Does he agree that our support of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty could be demonstrated by the withdrawal and abandonment of Polaris? Will he assure the House that before any irrevocable steps are taken for any replacement he will come to the House for a decision rather than allow the military clique to make a decision, as happened in 1946 when we started out on this path?

I do not accept that Polaris is expensive for the role that it performs. We firmly believe that it makes a major contribution to our deterrent capability. The question of a successor system to Polaris is under consideration, as I have indicated, and it is the Government's conviction that because the nuclear deterrent achieves its objective we should consider its future.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our ballistic missile submarines could be adapted for Trident 1, and would not Trident 1 and the cruise missile make the right mix for the next generation?

My right hon. Friend has referred to a number of possible options which are relevant to other aspects of the nuclear deterrent, and I have these under review.

Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to study the sixth report from the Expenditure Committee on this matter? If so, has he read the interesting memorandum from Field Marshal Lord Carver, in which the noble Lord points out that the cost of a successor system would not be justified if it were viewed as support for the American system, and that the circumstances in which it would be likely to be used in isolation from the American system are very unlikely to occur? In view of those sage words of advice from Field Marshal Lord Carver, does the Secretary of State think the Government would be justified in spending £3,000 million on a replacement?

The opinions expressed by Field Marshal Lord Carver are extremely important because of the positions that he has held. But they are matters of opinion, and there are judgments to be made, in concert with our allies. These are the kinds of considerations and factors that are under review in our contemplation of how we ought to proceed in the 1990s after the Polaris system has completed its useful life.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that article 12 of the SALT agreement will not inhibit the United States of America from giving us technical information, as necessary, to get this very important and most necessary replacement for Polaris, a matter which many of us on the Conservative Benches regard as of great urgency?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the importance of this technology within the alliance and between the United States and ourselves is very great. The Government have received assurances that the agreement will not interfere with continued nuclear and technical co-operation between the United States and its allies, and that the essential security interests of the alliance are safeguarded.

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

I expect to meet my NATO colleagues at the ministerial meetings of the nuclear planning group and defence planning committee later this year.

Is not my right hon. Friend only too well aware of the danger to NATO and to Europe caused by the Russian SS20 missile? Will he undertake to discuss with his NATO colleagues, and more particularly with Defence Secretary Brown during his coming visit to the United States, the whole question of the modernisation of the theatre nuclear force?

There is no doubt that the weapon developed by Soviet Russia, mentioned by my hon. Friend, and the general build-up of military strength by the Warsaw Pact countries present the NATO Alliance with a formidable threat. The most urgent aspect for us is the modernisation of theatre nuclear forces, to which my hon. Friend refers. It is the intention of the Alliance to try to take decisions on this important subject by the end of the year. I shall have this matter very much in mind during my visit to the United States next week.

In advance of his next meeting with his NATO colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the deep concern felt about the security implications of the explosions that took place earlier today at British Army establishments in Germany. Will he make a statement to the House now, or will he give further details at a later stage?

I am sure that everyone in the House will join me in condemning the two bomb explosions that took place at BAOR messes in the early hours of this morning. Although there has been extensive superficial damage, I am glad to say that no one was injured in either incident. Service units have since been put on a higher level of security alert, and investigations into the bombings are being carried out with the utmost urgency. Obviously, we want to know, as soon as possible, everything that we can about the incidents, who caused them, who is responsible, why they happened and whether our own internal security is adequate.

Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the proposals now under discussion in Washington for the formation of a unilateral force to intervene in defence of Western interests outside NATO? Has his attention further been drawn to similar proposals which appear to be under discussion in Paris? Will he consider, both within his Ministry and when he meets his NATO colleagues, whether we might usefully make a contribution in the same direction?

I am aware of the plans being prepared in the United States, and, as my right hon. Friend knows, in an earlier office which I held when sitting on the Opposition benches I took particular interest in events in the Middle East and other areas outside NATO. It is very much in my mind to pursue this matter and make assessments, with our American allies, when I go to the United States next week.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend, at any time, to raise with his colleagues in NATO the question of the heavy cost to the British economy of the British Army of the Rhine? Does he accept that, in the interests of this country, steps must be taken at some stage to reduce the very heavy burden we are carrying?

This issue has been raised on a number of occasions with the Federal Republic of Germany. The last agreement was reached by the previous Administration, which the hon. Gentleman supported when he was on the Government Benches. It has, I think, another year or two to run. I am aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have to make further progress in saving money, if it is possible, in the light of the agreement reached by the previous Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans Her Majesty's Government have for increasing the size and numbers of fighter squadrons available to the Royal Air Force for the air defence of the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the current state of air defences; and when he expects to be able to make a statement.

The Government have made plain their resolve to strengthen the nation's defences, and I can assure my hon. Friends that improvements to our air defences are very high on the list of priorities. As I indicated during the Adjournment debate on 15 June, the Air Staff are currently studying ways and means of making much needed improvements. My hon. Friends will know of the importance that the Government attach to air defence and will, I am sure, understand our desire to achieve the right solution to the considerable air defence problems that we have inherited. I hope to make a further statement soon.

My hon. Friend's words will be much appreciated on the Government Benches and by the Royal Air Force. Will he accept that one of the earliest actions that could be taken would be the arming of the Hawk trainer force with Sidewinder? Is my hon. Friend fur- ther aware that it is unacceptable that the Royal Air Force should have to wait until the second half of the 1980s for a new generation of fighter aircraft to replace the 70 or so Phantoms and Lightnings, which represent the technology of the 1950s? Will he give urgent consideration to the possibility of the purchase of a big wing of F-14 or F-15 aircraft, which would provide the necessary protection?

My hon. Friend is accurately giving a résumé of the several options that we are considering. I assure him that these options will be examined with appropriate urgency.

Does my hon. Friend agree that time is of the essence and that the longer he and his right hon. Friend delay in filling this gap the greater is the likelihood that we shall be stampeded into buying obsolescent American equipment? Does not my hon. Friend agree that, whatever short-term measures may be required, his strategic objective should be to found the rebuilding of our air defences on aircraft and missiles designed and built as far as possible within the United Kingdom?

I support my hon. Friend's last point. We should endeavour to supply our air defence requirements from within our own, or from within European, industrial capability. I said in my original answer that I hoped to make a further statement soon. I hope my hon. Friend does not feel that we are dragging our feet.

Will the Minister enlighten the House about the Government's plans for selling off British Aerospace factories in Preston to private enterprise?

I hardly feel that that issue comes within the ambit of this question.

Will my hon. Friend do what he can to press on with the hardening of our radar defences, and will be also bear in mind that ground defence weapons, especially in the West, are a quick way of filling a gap?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the massive cuts, right across the board, that are about to reduce our schools to a difficult position are not consonant with a colossal increase in armaments? Will he enlighten the House on how soon he expects the Russians to attack? Should we not all run for cover right now because, obviously, we are all in great danger from the American miscalculation known as Skylab?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that in the modern world the capability of the Warsaw Pact to threaten, through military blackmail, to achieve what it wishes is perfectly possible. Therefore, it is not necessarily for the hon. Gentleman to say when we might receive an invasion. The possibility of blackmail remains.

Order. Before I call the next question, I must appeal for supplementary questions to be briefer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the impact of technological developments in submarine detection on the timing and nature of the replacement of Great Britain's nuclear strategic force.

The vulnerability of different launch platforms to pre-emptive attack will be an important factor in determining the best option for an eventual successor to the Polaris force, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not a factor which will adversely affect the operational life of the present force.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that recent advances in antisubmarine detection devices and weapon systems substantially diminish the basic advantage of the submarine as an undetectable launching device? In view of these advances, has my right hon. Friend arrived at any preliminary conclusion on whether any replacement for our nuclear deterrent should be airborne rather than submarine-based?

I have not yet arrived at a preliminary conclusion. It would be premature to do so. I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the develop- ments in anti-submarine technology. Equally, we are aware that our own capability in counter-anti-submarine measures remains very well advanced. We have every confidence in the security of our existing submarines.

Will the Secretary of State concede that, no matter how he looks to the future, the present situation in relation to our deterrent is serious and is made more serious by the continuance of the industrial dispute? Will he enjoin his colleagues in the Civil Service Department and the Department of Employment to get the dispute settled as quickly as possible?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, because I share his desire to end this dispute as quickly as possible. Clearly, it is having some consequences upon our defence effort, and the sooner it is ended the more satisfied I shall be.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of his recent announcement that the entitlements generally of Service women should be brought into line with those of men, he will now take steps to bring the pension entitlements of Service women into line with those of Service men.

The personal pensions of Service women are already in line with those of their male colleagues. However, unlike the widows and dependent children of Service men, the widowers and dependent children of Service women are not at present eligible for pensions. I have already begun an examination of this aspect.

I welcome the examination which the hon. Gentleman is undertaking, but will he bear in mind that in April last year the Labour Government found the money to introduce equal pay for equal work among Service men and Service women, and will he therefore find the money to introduce an equal pension scheme for widows and widowers within the Services?

I am pressing on and looking into these matters as quickly as I can, but it will take a little time. We are looking into the problem, which is one of trying to bring both sides into line. I shall make an announcement as soon as possible.

While my hon. Friend is looking into the question of Service women and their rights under the pension scheme, will he look also into the problems of widows of Service men who lose their pension for all time when they remarry a Service man who does not carry a widow's pension?

That is another matter, which does not relate to the present question, but I am aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend refers.

While the Minister is looking into these anomalies, will he look at another one, raised by the Ex-Regular Servicemen's Pensions Association, relating to those who were retired prior to 1973 and those retired after 1973? The discrepancy in pension is pretty large.

This matter revolves around the various pension Acts. I am not sure that I can give a firm guarantee on that. There are many anomalies in pension schemes—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and others mentioned them at our last Question Time—and we are looking into these various aspects.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the off-duty travel facilities available to personnel of Her Majesty's Forces.

The entitlements of Service men stationed in the United Kingdom are currently under review. At present they have a basic allowance of four free leave travel warrants during each year for return journeys from their duty station to any destination in the United Kingdom. In addition, married Service men separated from their wives are entitled, subject to certain conditions, to up to eight free separation warrants annually.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that most civilian firms which require their employees to work away from home offer better travel facilities than our Armed Forces do at present? Does he realise that, now that the present Government have put right the pay, which was left so bad under the previous Government, the provision of travel facilities has become a top priority? Will he look at it on that basis?

I certainly want to see improvements in this respect. There is a particular problem for the Navy, and there is a problem generally. It is my desire to improve the off-duty travel facilities if we possibly can. We are looking into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the relocation plan for the Army pay and records office at Higher Borrash, Exeter.

As my noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, explained when my hon. Friend brought a deputation from the local staff sides and the Exeter city council to see him on 20 June, these relocation plans are in abeyance pending the outcome of the current reappraisal of the Government's dispersal programme which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, announced on 11 June.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep anger which was caused by the announcement of the transfer of jobs from one area with high unemployment to another area of high unemployment, after several years of substantial expenditure on establishing these pay and records offices in the West Country? Will he therefore exert as much pressure as possible to secure an early reversal of that decision?

I am certainly aware—my hon. Friend has taken good care to ensure that Ministers are aware—of the deep feelings on this matter, and especially about the timing of the proposal, which came out just before the election. We hope that the announcement of the outcome of the review now being carried out will be made before the Summer Recess.

Is the Minister aware that, wherever the pay may originate, our Regular Armed Forces are delighted with the recent record increase which they have had, but is it not about time that the members of the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve had their boundaries increased in line with the Shapland recommendations?

I am glad that my predecessor acknowledges his own sense of, I presume, shame and guilt at not having been a party to the substantial pay increases which he now recognises were necessary. As regards the Shapland recommendations and the question of bounties, these matters are under active consideration and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Labour Government's attempt to buy a few votes with this entirely political decision, made just before the election and too late to be questioned in Parliament, has nothing whatever to do with the Hardman report on relocation from London?

My hon. Friend is quite right, and in any case conditions have changed so much in relation to the Hardman report that that is one of the reasons why the Government have announced a review of all these matters.

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

No, Sir.

In view of the great Russian threat in the Indian Ocean, does not my right hon. Friend think that such a meeting would be valuable, and does he not agree that the time has come to reactivate the Simonstown agreement?

I would not disagree with my hon. Friend's proposition that in due course such a meeting would be useful, but I should say that we have no plans at the moment for renegotiating the Simonstown agreement. Naturally, we are concerned about the presence of the Soviet Navy in such strength in the Indian Ocean, but that strength is, of course, balanced by allied forces, and it is an area, like many others, which we are keeping under constant review.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what advantage there would be if we were allied with South Africa in trying to counter the Russian threat in the Indian Ocean? Secondly, will he take this opportunity to confirm that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of again selling arms to South Africa, for either internal or external use?

On the latter point, we have fulfilled, and taken the steps necessary to fulfil, the United Nations resolution on that subject. I did not speak about being aligned with South Africa in naval matters. I made no proposal of that kind, but it seems to me to be a possibility for the future that I might at some moment meet my opposite number there. But I have no plans to do so at the moment.

Although I, personally, should doubt the wisdom of going back to Simonstown, will my right hon. Friend make clear that, in principle, the Government would be willing to share maritime intelligence with the South African Navy and also to carry out training with the South African Navy?

That is a matter which I should certainly be prepared to consider, although I think I am right in saying that the South African Navy has given no indication that it particularly desires such an exchange or co-operation of that kind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that his statement that he has no intention of meeting this gentleman will be very welcome, at least on these Opposition Benches, but will he make clear also through the appropriate channels that the military connivance of South Africa with the illegal regime in Rhodesia is a hostile act to this country and will bring down reprisals on South Africa?

On the first point, I did not say that I had no such intention. I do not actually have immediate plans to do so. I do not think that in a matter of defence and the protection of our sea routes one ought to exclude a conversation at some stage on that subject. The point raised in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for my noble Friend the Foreign and Common-wealth Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the American authorities on housing for service families at bases in East Anglia.

:.The United States Air Force authorities in the Bentwaters-Woodbridge area have sought the help of the local authorities over the difficult housing problem there. The Suffolk county council has written to the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, my own Department and other interested parties and asked if a meeting could be convened. This is being looked into. I would certainly expect my Department to be represented at any such meeting.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the people of Suffolk wish to extend the greatest hospitality to those who are there helping to defend the West, and that if they are to do so they need as much help as they can get from his Department in the circumstances of the Government cutbacks which are necessary but which bear heavily on the county of Suffolk?

I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are reported to the appropriate quarter.

Is it not vital that we give consideration to our Service men in the circumstances in which they are demobilised, given notice to quit and have considerable difficulty in getting accomodation allocated to them from local authorities? Is it not vital that we take care of that issue in the first place?

I do not know whether I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says " in the first place ", but he refers to a matter that is of at least equal importance to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer). The hon. Gentleman has a point of substance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is far better for RAF Service men to live on the station rather than being forced by high rents that have been set in the past to push out into the neighbouring villages and live off the station? It is a major problem because many houses on RAF stations in East Anglia are empty.

My hon. Friend is right when he says that it is desirable for RAF personnel to live on the station. It is our wish to encourage that state of affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will permit trade unions to recruit members of the Armed Forces.

Members of the Armed Forces may join existing trade unions as individuals provided this does not involve them in activities which would conflict with their military duties. Tradesmen who are nearing the end of their military service are encouraged to seek union membership as an aid to resettlement. There are, however, no plans for authorising any form of collective representation, and the question of allowing trade unions to recruit for that purpose does no, therefore, arise.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better for Service personnel to have a proper procedure for airing grievances through trade unions rather than have the shabby situation of the wives of Service men being forced to demonstrate on behalf of their husbands to get proper pay? Were we not the subject of some comment in other countries, where trade unionism is regarded as a basic right in their armed forces?

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy said last week, the Government are not convinced that it is a desirable step in itself or one that would necessarily benefit Service men. I should add that there is no evidence that the idea commands any degree of significant support within our Armed Forces.

Will my right hon. Friend resist any siren voices from trade unions trying collectively to unionise the British military forces? That would be a most deleterious approach, and it is something that should be widely resisted.

If such voices were raised, they would not be all that well received by those to whom they were directed.

Why do the Government take a more negative view than some of our NATO Allies, who have trade union organisation in their Armed Services? It is not clear that it is time that the Government came up to date and recognised an organisation similar, perhaps, to that in the police force?

There are some countries in the NATO Alliance which do not permit trade unionism of any sort in their Armed Forces. The hon. Gentleman should take note of that. He should also remember that my predecessor took a different view from the one that he takes. I see no reason to depart from my predecessor's view.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of sending reinforcements from the United Kingdom to the Hong Kong garrison; and who will bear that cost.

The estimated cost of the reinforcements to the Hong Kong garrison is some £25 million for a 12-month period. This includes the cost of movement from the United Kingdom and Brunei. The proportion of these costs which will be borne by the Hong Kong Government is under discussion.

Is it not time for us to end this stupid charade of maintaining a military garrison 10,000 miles away in a Chinese city? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if any conflict arose the Chinese could turn off the water for the whole of Hong Kong at the turn of a tap?

Her Majesty's Government are responsible for Hong Kong's external defence and its internal security. It is in response to that responsibility that we have recently sent reinforcements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the speedy dispatch of British soldiers and the firm and humane way in which they have operated in a difficult situation in Hong Kong commands the admiration of the House and the British public?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is true that the reinforcements went to Hong Kong quickly and that the battalions already there and the reinforcement battalion have been fully and effectively deployed in difficult work. The Governor and Government of Hong Kong are as appreciative as I am sure the House is of the contribution made by our Services in Hong Kong.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent appraisal has been made of the effectiveness of the FV Type 710 Osprey fishery inspection vessel as now in service with the Danish Navy.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, representatives of my Department had the opportunity to visit the Osprey when she was in London recently, but we have not yet had the opportunity to see her operating at sea in the patrol role.

Will the Government pursue their interest in the Osprey? As the Government are seeking economies in public expenditure, does not this type of vessel make a great deal more sense than the more expensive type of vessel and aircraft protection that we now have for fishery protection? Would not standardisation within the EEC make more sense, this being a British designed ship al-tough, unfortunately, built in Denmark?

We shall be pursuing investigations into the Osprey in a patrol role. We were especially interested in ascertaining how the vessel could cope with rather rougher water than we have seen so far. She is one of the designs being considered—there are a number of others—for this sort of vessel. No final decision will be taken for a number of months.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these vessels have the seagoing qualities that are needed for fishery protection? Does he think that they are in any way comparable with the Island class, which the Labour Government introduced? I do not think that they are.

The hon. Gentleman takes up the very point that I was making. That is why we want to see Osprey in rough weather. She will have to stand up to the sort of weather that the hon. Gentleman knows well. A requirement will be for boarding operations in sea state 6, for example. If she cannot stand that up to distances of 200 miles from our shores, frankly, she will be no use.

Has my hon. Friend investigated whether these vessels will be suitable for strengthening our North Sea oilfield patrol force?

That is all part and parcel of the same sort of requirement that we are considering in the offshore role. That is one of the items that we shall be considering in terms of the Osprey, together with a number of other designs that are now being evaluated. As my hon. Friend will know, the rigs are some considerable distance from our shores. Therefore, these ships will have to withstand rough weather conditions and must have the necessary endurance and proper sea-keeping qualities.

Will the Minister confirm that there has been no reluctance on the part of his Ministry to undertake the appraisal to which the question refers? Does he agree that there has been unwillingness on the part of the makers to furnish his experts with the requisite information?

There has been no unwillingness on the part of my Ministry. We are still awaiting detailed information. I hope that it will be possible to obtain that information shortly and to gain first-hand experience in the sea conditions mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson).

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any commitment has been made, at NATO Defence Ministers' meetings held since 3 May, to accept the development of new medium-range nuclear missiles and their possible basing in the United Kingdom.

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that NATO's longer-range theatre nuclear forces are kept up to date, particularly in view of the greatly increased Soviet capability in this area. However, decisions on the level and form of individual nation's contributions to a collective Alliance effort are not likely to be made before the end of this year.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the general acceptance of such weapons will inevitably heighten tension in the area and make prospects worse for SALT III and possible for SALT II? Will he comment on the recent statement by the United States Defense Secretary that an agreement would be reached on the modernisation of nuclear weapons for NATO before the end of the year?

The escalation of the military strength of the Warsaw Pact countries in the nuclear and non-nuclear sectors is such that it is necessary, in the view of the Alliance, to modernise our theatre nuclear forces. We cannot negotiate arms control or a reduction of arms except from a position of strength. Our most immediate concern is the way in which the military might of the Soviet powers is, as far as one can see, escalating and increasing more rapidly every year. It behoves us to ensure that we have a range of weapons capable of deterring any threat by the Soviet Union. From that position we would hope to be able to negotiate an arms control agreement that would reduce the number of forces and the strength of the armies on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the admirable leading letter in The Daily Telegraph yesterday written by Air Vice-Marshal Stewart Menaul in which he argued the cost-effectiveness and spoke highly of the capability of the air-launched cruise missile in the nuclear role?

Yes, I saw that letter. There are a number of possible weapons that would fulfil the nuclear capability that is desired. The Alliance is looking into those options. I am doing the same on the part of the United Kingdom.

How is it that more money can always be found for new weapons even when vital social services are being slashed?

Unless we can protect and secure the peace and the way of life of the free Western world, there will be no social security to defend.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of recent international talks leading to a real reduction in nuclear weapons, if Her Majesty's Government will postpone plans for developing new nuclear weapons for basing these in the United Kingdom.

The Government have welcomed the SALT II agreement, but that does not remove the need to maintain the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's own nuclear contribution to the Alliance.

I welcome the fact that the Government accept the SALT II agreement. However, does the Secretary of State realise that the world is now spending £200 billion on the nuclear arms race? Rather than making more sophisticated nuclear weapons, would it not be better for there to be an agreement between East and West for balanced reductions of nuclear weapons?

The object of the policy is to reach a situation where we can reduce the forces on both sides. Our immediate anxiety is the scale of the increase on the other side. I do not think that the security of the Alliance can be made hostage to the hope of a future breakthrough on the arms control front. We must have something solid with which to negotiate. In the end we hope to reach that position. However, it feels a long way off at the moment.

Bearing in mind that under the terms of the agreement the Soviet Union will be doubling its stocks of nuclear warheads, as opposed to nuclear missiles, will my right hon. Friend correct the inaccuracy on the Order Paper? When he meets Defence Secretary Brown in Washington shortly, will he take steps to provide a remedy for the grave imbalance that has arisen in European strategic weaponry?

I assure my hon. Friend that I have his remarks very much in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on operations in Northern Ireland.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear to the House recently, the object of our security policy in Northern Ireland continues to be the defeat of terrorism and the extension of normal policing. The operations of the armed forces in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary continue to make an invaluable contribution to this aim.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole House endorses his tribute to Her Majesty's forces in Northern Ireland? As the Dublin Government are publicly committed to the defeat of terrorism, is it not time that co-operation between the British and Irish Armies reached the point that has been achieved between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary? What has been done to that end?

Co-operation is being received from the security forces of the Republic. This has been mainly on the police net. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Irelan, recently visited Dublin. He had useful discussions with the Government of the Republic. We are considering what further steps could help to improve co-operation on security matters. I agree that this is a most important aspect of the situation.

Does the Minister agree that the standard Army tactics have not been widely successful in Northern Ireland? Therefore, is it not foolish to start using the UDR and training them to those tactics? Would it not be much wiser to treat the UDR as an anti-terrorist force and use it accordingly?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the failure of the tactics of the troops in Northern Ireland, who at present are there in a supporting role to the RUC.

In view of the deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland, where the Provisional IRA is killing more and more members of the security forces and civilians, will the Minister make a massive increase in the number of SAS personnel serving on the border areas of the Province and also mobilise another full-time battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment?

If we can achieve increased recruiting to the UDR, that will be an important contribution. The deployment of units is a matter for the Commander-in-Chief, in consultation with the Secretary of State.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

In addition to duties in this House I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen. Later I shall leave for an official visit to Scotland.

In the course of her visit, will my right hon. Friend pause to consider some of the comments made on yesterday's proposals for consultation on improvements in trade union practice? Does she agree that the proposals reflect the wishes of the great majority of British people—and indeed the membership of the trade union movement—as was so clearly expressed by means of the ballot box? Will my right hon. Friend not be deflected from her path by the Pavlovian and wholly predictable response of Messrs. Len Murray and Moss Evans?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The consultation document arises out of our undertakings in the manifesto. Those were discussed with the British people while the events of last winter were still fresh in their minds. It was largely as a result of those manifesto proposals that we gained more support than ever before from trade union members, and excellent support in this place.

Will the Prime Minister take some time this afternoon to consider the promises that her right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made on 22 June? He promised a 6p in the pound reduction in the price of butter. Is the Prime Minister aware that in none of the supermarkets that I have checked has a price reduction like this been made? Is that another broken Conservative promise? If not, will the right hon. Lady take time off this afternoon, come shopping with me and show me in which supermarkets this Conservative bargain may be purchased?

My right hon. Friend procured the biggest subsidy for butter that we have ever had, of 12p in the pound. I trust that that will work its way through to the shops to the benefit of the housewife.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the strength of sterling and the obvious overseas confidence in the policies of the Government, it is time to abolish exchange control regulations?

It is our intention progressively to dismantle exchange controls. It would be unwise to go too far too fast. A policy of one step at a time is very much better.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have alreday given.

With the prospect of a sharp increase in mortgage rates due on Friday, will the Prime Minister reconsider her decision on the question of making money available to the building societies, as the previous Labour Government did in similar circumstances, to avert a further boost in the spiralling cost of living, which seems to be the stock-in-trade of her Government?

My views on the mortgage rates are well known. It would be far better to wait and see what decision is taken before the Government take any further decision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that she will be warmly welcomed when she visits Scotland? That welcome will be all the warmer it she is able to announce positive proposals for the implementation of the Hardman report, about which the Labour Government chilly shallied for five years.

I am very much looking forward to the visit to Scotland but, so that I shall not disappoint my hon. Friend, I point out that I have no major statements to make on the occasion of that visit.

Has the Prime Minister found time today to read the reports of headmasters having to warn parents that they cannot guarantee adequate standards of education for their children, partly because her Government have chosen to divert £60 million from State schools to subsidise fee-paying selective schools? As those who will suffer most from such a policy will be deprived school children, will the Prime Minister admit that her attendance at the recent International Year of the Child celebrations was a piece of sheer hypocrisy?

As the hon. Member will be aware, the numbers and proportions of teachers compared with pupils will stay approximately the same in primary and secondary schools. That is the key to achieving good standards of education for children.

Will my right hon. Friend take take time off today to read the report in the Sunday Express, which suggested that Her Majesty the Queen might have to receive Mr. Nkomo, who is a terrorist and murderer? Will my right hon. Friend do everything that she can to spare Her Majesty that embarrassment?

We have not been advised of any such meeting, nor has our high commission.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have already given.

Will the Prime Minister, if she has not already done so, read the report on the manpower survey carried out in relation to 1,226 top industrialists in this country, which states categorically that because of the cuts in public expenditure, and because of the curtailment of recruitment in local authorities, there will be no new jobs? Will she note that the report further states that because of the cuts in consumer expenditure due to the increase in indirect taxation there will be mass redundancies? Bearing in mind the carping criticism which came from her and her right hon. and hon. Friends when we had a Labour Government, will she tell us how she intends to rectify the position?

One of the purposes of cuts in public expenditure—which has to be financed by taxation levied upon the hon. Gentleman's electorate, just as much as on anyone else's —is to get more money back into the private sector, so that we can get more jobs in the private sector. When that is done we tend to have more small businesses growing, and that is the true source of new employment.

Will the Prime Minister manage to call at Amble in my constituency, where her Government have axed a new naval dock project? Can this be the Government who promised to give our Forces the equipment that they needed? Has she any other plans to help this depressed area?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have given priority to defence expenditure. As he is against public expenditure cuts, he must be in favour of more taxation on the British people.

Unless the Prime Minister has already done so, will she find time today to telephone Camp David and ask President Carter whether he will let her into two secrets? First, what is the deal that he has done with Saudi Arabia, and will it help? Secondly, has he now got an energy policy, and will it be sufficient to meet the targets that she helped him to achieve in Tokyo?

I have the impression that they are already rather busy at Camp David, but I hope that the news from Saudi Arabia is correct. If we did our bit in Tokyo to try to depress demand, one of the reasons was to be able to persuade Saudi Arabia to increase he supply of oil. If she has agreed to do so, it will be a tremendous help on price.

asked the Prime Minister when last she met the TUC.

I met the economic committee of the TUC on 25 June.

Since the Prime Minister apparently expects trade unions to go in for responsible pay bargaining, will she explain how, having destroyed any effective prices watchdog, she expects to persuade trade union negotiators that those who fix prices will be equally responsible?

I do not know whether one will be able to persuade them, but unless increased pay is matched by increased output the result will be either inflation or unemployment.

When the Prime Minister next sees the TUC, will she ask that gentle body just what it is that some trade union leaders seem to fear when they require that individuals who work in firms with closed shops should not merely be deprived of their employment but should be deprived of it without unfair dismissal compensation?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to some of the matters that are the subject of consultation with the trade unions at the moment. We believe firmly that people should not be able to be deprived of their jobs without compensation just because they refuse to belong to a trade union. We hope that that is a matter that we shall put right in legislation.

In view of the virtual certainty of mortgage rate increases, will the right hon. Lady acknowledge to the TUC that the average worker will now make a considerable loss from the Budget, and not a net gain as she previously claimed, while she made a gain of about £43 a week? [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Will she explain why people on her level of salary need 40 times the extra incentive of the real wealth creators in society on the shop floor?

There were reliefs of direct tax all the way up, as the hon. Gentleman knows. If I were to take the advice that has been tendered to me from the Opposition Benches today, all those tax reliefs would be cancelled in favour of increased public expenditure.

In the light of the long and proud history of the trade union movement in protecting its members against the force of the rich and over-powerful, will my right hon. Friend do her best to draw to its attention the fact that the proposals in the paper that has been produced will do much to protect individual trade unionists from the over-mighty power of many senior and powerful trade unionists?

I will, indeed, convey the message so cogently put by my hon. Friend. Those proposals will also protect anyone who wishes to go about his lawful business unhindered.

Will the right hon. Lady accept that, despite the soft-sell of the proposals of the Government in relation to trade union reform, these proposals are an echo of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which Labour Members and the trade union movement were quite right to fight? Is it not clear that if she persists in this type of policy she will run into a great deal of difficulty, both in this House and in the country?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about any similarity between these proposals and the major Act that was introduced in 1971. Indeed, one has only to look at that Act to see that that was a very much larger measure than anything that we are introducing now. I believe that we have an absolute mandate for these proposals. They are what the people want. The events of last winter showed that they were needed. I hope that we shall have with us everyone who believes that great powers should be matched by great responsibilities.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the act of Labour councils—such as the one in my constituency—which have decided to stop selling council houses to many of the tenants, many of whom are trade union members who would wish to buy them?

I can only condemn such action and hope that we shall have a Bill before the House soon that will give tenants the right to purchase council houses from the council.

asked the Prime Minister if she will visit Heaton Moor.

I have no plans to do so.

Would the Prime Minister care to reconsider that reply? Many of my constituents in Heaton Moor, particularly those on low incomes and pensions, would very much like to impress on her the difficulty that they have in paying their water service charges, and would very much like the Government to consider extending the rate rebate system to cover water charges.

I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. At the moment I have no plans to do what he asks.