asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers are intending to discuss widening the spheres of territory covered by the Alliance to include areas outside Western Europe.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf for his absence this afternoon. He is today attending the NATO Defence Planning Committee's regular spring ministerial session in Brussels. NATO consults on all matters affecting Western security interests and is keenly aware of the need to consider the global nature of the threat to Western peace and security. There are, however, no plans to extend the area covered by the North Atlantic Treaty.

As the Alliance has successfully contained the Soviet Union since it was formed in Europe, and as the threat may now be said to be in other areas, such as the Middle East, is it not time to consider whether the Alliance, collectively, should give territorial guarantees, at least to friendly Powers, where the direct interests of the West would be fatally affected if those countries were invaded?

Certainly the matter can be considered, and of course all matters affecting Western security will be under consideration.

The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is no intention at present to change the boundaries of the Alliance, will the Government give much more active consideration to creating air and naval forces that are flexible enough to intervene wherever they may be required? Battle tanks in Germany are all very well, but they are best suited to meeting the armoured threat in Central Europe.

We intend to maintain the capability of our forces to operate flexibly worldwide. However, that does not entail, or require, the creation of a specific new force. If my hon. Friend refers to paragraph 409 of the White Paper he will see that matter spelt out. No doubt these matters will be considered more widely by the partners in the Alliance, who are meeting in Brussels.

Quite apart from the question of cost, which must be of great concern to the House, will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend be extremely cautious about extending the sphere of operations of NATO? NATO has had a remarkably stabilising effect in Europe for 30 years, and for that reason it is important not to undermine that stability in any way by requiring members of NATO to be involved in spheres of operation and interest outside the NATO area.

I agree about the need not to undermine the unity of the Alliance, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look behind him and argue with his colleagues in support of that thesis.

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is need for caution. However, does he agree that there is probably a need for NATO to be more closely allied, for example, to Australian and New Zealand forces—and other forces—which clearly represent and defend free democratic societies?

I think that the United Kingdom is a valuable bridge, in that we maintain cordial co-operation with the armed forces and Governments of the countries to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.

Has the Minister seen the report on page 7 of The Guardian today, which states that Mr. Harold Brown said, in an interview in Il Tempo in Italy, that it was part of NATO's responsibility to patrol—with Japan, incidentally—the Persian Gulf because the United States intended to spend more money in South-East Asia? Do the Government know anything about that report?

I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what controls against accidental launch will be fitted to the cruise missile system which is to be deployed in the United Kingdom.

The cruise missiles to be deployed in this country are designed to most stringent safety and security standards to preclude accidental launch or other misuse.

Is not it a fact that eight out of 10 of the 20 tests by Boeing and General Dynamics went seriously astray? If one of the 160 missiles is launched by accident against a Russian city, will that not result in retaliation against one or many of our own cities, and perhaps the lot?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about a weapon system which is some years from deployment. Mishaps of the type to which he refers occur at this stage in the development of any weapon system. Therefore, no particular adverse deductions should be drawn.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I visited the production plant to see the cruise missile? Does he accept that it is technically and inherently a much safer system than the manned aircraft which at present carry a nuclear load? Will my hon. Friend consider inviting the Americans to set out in simple terms why the system is so much safer than those that are at present available?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". I shall certainly bear his question in mind.

How can the Minister say anything about the testing and performance of cruise missiles when, in answer to a written question that I tabled asking for specific details about testing, he said that it was purely a matter for the United States Government? Do the Government have any information about cruise missiles? If not, why not? If they have the information, why cannot they reveal it to hon. Members? Alternatively, are we simply being trampled on by America? Are the missiles being imposed upon us without our having a right of consultation or veto?

The United States Government have to be responsible for the operational effectiveness of the system, which is their system. The United States would not deploy a system unless it was satisfied that it would work.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total sum paid to (a) officers, and (b) others ranks in educational allowances in the year 1979–80; and what is the average grossed up value of an allowance in each category.

The total sum paid in educational allowances in the year 1979–80 was £31·2 million, including some £9 million to cover claimants' tax liability. Of this sum, £21·7 million was paid to officers and £9·5 million to other ranks. Following a rate increase from April 1980, the average grossed value of an allowance is approximately £2,200 to an officer and £1,900 to an other rank.

Are the figures taken into account when Forces pay is being considered? Is the intention to continue to index them fully for inflation at a time when the State education system is being cut by 9 per cent?

The figures are taken into account by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Indeed, proposals for some improvement in the boarding school allowance are under consideration by that body.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the educational allowance makes an important contribution to the families of all ranks? Is he satisfied with the manner in which the allowance is grossed up for tax purposes, because that can have an unfair result in some cases? If he is not satisfied, will he make a warlike approach to his right hon. Friend?

The grossing up is open to some criticism. Representations have been made on behalf of people who believe that they are adversely affected. In relation to the contribution that the boarding allowance makes to members of the Army generally, it is worth noting that about 35 per cent. of those involved are other ranks, compared with only 26 per cent. under the last Government three years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's forces in Northern Ireland.

There are currently 12 major units of the regular Army in Northern Ireland, together with a variety of supporting elements and members of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. There are also 11 battalions of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The role of the Armed Forces is to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House more about the local reorganisation of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Since its value lies primarily in its local roots, why for example, close the UDR camp at Loughgall in such a dangerous area?

Some closures have been decided by the local commanders in order to improve efficiency. Representations are being made about the proposals, and of course they will be considered.

If the Government's intention is to defeat terrorism, will my hon. Friend tell the House why we do not take more positive action in Ulster, through specialist forces, along the lines of the action that we took at Princes Gate to defeat terrorism?

I am surprised that my hon. Friend should cast even a scintilla of doubt upon the Government's determination to fight terrorism. At a time when so much publicity has been given to the SAS in this country and to the monitoring force in Rhodesia, I reiterate my unbounded admiration for all those serving in Northern Ireland and for the contribution that they make.

Would it be possible so to increase the size of the UDR in Northern Ireland as to take over a greater proportion and share of our military needs there?

A small increase in the permanent cadre of the Ulster Defence Regiment has been agreed recently, and it is increasing its contribution in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

I admit that the primary reason for setting up the UDR was to obtain local knowledge in the local areas, and I accept that there might be a case for rationalisation. However, can the Minister say something more about the position of the regular battalions? Have they had the desired effect on the roulement of troops from Germany? Has he slackened that apace?

The redeployments that have been made and the reduction in the size of our forces in Northern Ireland have reduced the amount of overstretch. Overall, it has been a beneficial move.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will investigate the setting up of a European independent nuclear deterrent.

No, Sir. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave him on 28 April.

I accept that it is desirable that we should continue to benefit from the American nuclear umbrella, and therefore that we should encourage its continuance, but does my hon. Friend agree that the final decision does not rest with us? Is it not possible at least that, should the Russians put a foot in Western Germany, the Americans would not be prepared to swap their cities for Russian cities on the basis of defending Europe? Therefore, would it not be prudent to get together with our European partners, particularly the French and Germans, with a view to setting up an independent European nuclear deterrent?

No. The non-proliferation treaty does not allow other European countries which do not already possess them to have control over nuclear weapons. I am sure that the security of the Western Alliance rests on our determination jointly to resist aggression in a collective way. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Has not the time come for the Government, and everybody else, to work towards a European nuclear-free zone, for the people actively to campaign for that and to say clearly that it is time that Britain got rid if its nuclear weapons?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that Europe includes the Soviet Union.

Bearing in mind the enormous cost of the Polaris replacement if it is to be based on the United States Trident submarine-launched system, does my hon. Friend exclude from his consideration of options for the Polaris successor a land-based missile to be developed jointly by France, Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany?

All options for the Polaris successor are still open, and discussions are taking place on the question of a launcher for the appropriate missile. I remind my hon. Friend that the non-proliferation treaty does not allow other European countries to have control over nuclear weapons. They are debarred from that. The Federal German Republic has no wish to have such control, and there is no indication that France wishes joint control. I reiterate that the security of the Western Alliance is an important factor in our standing together. I do not believe that it would help NATO or the Alliance to follow the course that my hon. Friend suggests.

Because the United State of America and the Soviet Union possess enough nuclear weapons to blow up the planet 17 times, would it not be better to concentrate on preventing the proliferation of those weapons and reducing the existing nuclear stock?

Various discussions have taken place over the past two years on that matter. In the debate in January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army had a great deal to say about the initiatives taken by the West along those lines.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects a decision to be reached on the radar systems required for the United Kingdom air defence ground environment.

It is hoped to award the contract for the first two radars very shortly.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is doing everything possible to support the claims of British contenders for the award? Will he confirm also that, because the American Westinghouse Corporation is one of the foreign contenders, he will make sure that everybody involved in the decision knows that in the case of the CAA radar competition the claims put forward by Westinghouse salesmen were not borne out by experience and were found to be far in excess of the capacity of their equipment?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Defence will give the same response as was given by the CAA to any claims by Westinghouse salesmen that are shown to be bogus. It would be as well for British contractors, having made a sensible assessment of the likely market share that they could achieve, to base their costings on achieving such a share, rather than to do what they do too often now, which it to base their costings on a small order from the Ministry of Defence, thereby losing world markets.

Does the Minister accept that an order to British companies could have world-wide effects in export markets? The CA A has already awarded its contracts to a Dutch-based company, Phillips, with only a small proportion of work returning to this country. This is a vital issue, and many employees in my constituency and elsewhere are concerned that the order should go to a British company.

In the case of the CAA radars, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade have to be aware of the likely impact on export markets. When the hon. Gentleman analyses the CAA radar decision he will find that 56 per cent. of that work is to come to the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when last he met the Chiefs of Staff to discuss the present security position in West Germany in relation to Her Majesty's Forces stationed there.

The physical security of Her Majesty's Forces' bases and of Service men in West Germany is a matter for the commanders on the spot, under the guidance of a British Forces Germany joint service security committee. I am satisfied that, in the wake of recent terrorist attacks there, all reasonable measures have been taken to counter this threat.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that somewhat staid reply. If there were an outbreak of conventional war, how long would it take the Soviet Union and its satellite Eastern bloc forces to come through the Federal Republic, Belgium and the Netherlands to the North Sea? Will he say how our forces and equipment match the comparable forces of the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Union? Does he think that there are sufficient supplies, stores and spares to sustain the BAOR?

In the unlikely event of an attack as described by my hon. Friend, I am certain that British Forces, and other forces of the Alliance, would give a very good account of themselves and would not permit Soviet forces to get through to the North Sea. In those circumstances, I think that my hon. Friend's question is based on a false premise.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the level and quality of formation training in the BAOR?

It is improving as a result of the new arrangements that have been made for the deployment of forces in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I am not entirely satisfied, and I hope that further improvements can be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when next he expects to meet his NATO counterparts to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

As I explained earlier, my right hon. Friend is meeting NATO Defence Ministers now, and they will be discussing a range of issues relating to Western security.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the purposes for which NATO exists can now be served only by maintaining a credible capability in areas formerly covered by defunct alliances, such as CENTO? Is he aware that we are encouraged by reports in this morning's newspapers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State encouraged our NATO Allies to support the Pentagon's contingency plans to divert troops formerly earmarked for support in Europe?

It is true that the interests of the West generally, and of the developing world, are bound up with the position in the Middle East and in the Gulf. Perhaps it could be argued that the withdrawals that took place in the past contributed to the instability in that area. As regards action by the Government, I explained in answer to an earlier question that we are seeking greater flexibility in our ability to respond outside the NATO area.

Will the Minister draw the attention of his NATO partners to reports that the United States is planning to build new bases, with 50,000 troops, in Egypt? Will he say whether he thinks that that will stabilise or destabilise the position in the Middle East?

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on newspaper reports about the actions of our allies. I wish to make it clear that we should do everything that we can to maintain the present close relationship with our American allies. We owe them our best counsel, and we owe them also our loyal support.

Will my hon. Friend say whether the sovereign base areas in Cyprus are used, or could be used, by NATO?

The sovereign base areas in Cyprus are used by British Forces. I should need notice to say whether there would be any restraints upon their being used by NATO forces under any conditions.

Is the Minister aware that the last thing that the Middle East needs in the present circumstances is a massive infusion of NATO forces? Is he further aware that the NATO treaty does not extend to that part of the world?

There is no proposal at the present time for NATO forces to be deployed in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will clarify the precise powers of Her Majesty's Government over the release of cruise missiles based in East Anglia, in relation to the powers of the United States Government, specifying whether, in the circumstances of a nuclear war, arrangements have been made for consultation with the Americans on the use of cruise missiles in the few minutes available; and whether Her Majesty's Government will have at every stage of any nuclear confrontation, the inalienable, unqualified and unconditional right of veto over their use.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on 29 April.

In that reply there was a reference to joint decision. Does "joint decision" in that context mean dual key control of the missiles?

No.

Quite apart from the need for the British Prime Minister to give consent by voice and by Telex before any nuclear weapons are used from this country, is it not a fact that United Kingdom authorities control the gas, water, electricity and traffic on which all American bases in Britain operate? Therefore, it is not possible for the Americans to operate independently out of the United Kingdom.

What my hon. Friend says is, of course, correct. It might be worth adding that "joint decision" means exactly what it says—not consultation, but decision.

Can the cruise missile be defused after it has been launched? Would it not be much safer for Britain and the world if nuclear weapons were confined to the big two—America and Russia?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The answer to the second part of his question is that there is a major difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and the Government.

The Minister said that the Americans would not install missiles that did not work. Yet apparently the Government have no information on whether they work. Is it not true that it was the equipment that failed in the Iranian incident? Is it not true also that the Government were not informed? Is it not pathetic for any hon. Member to suggest that we might have some sort of control by cutting off the water or the gas if the Americans propose to use cruise missiles?

I think that my hon. Friend was making a perfectly legitimate point, as he did in his first question to me, when he drew attention to the issue of joint decision and joint consultation. I think that it is one of the points that have been exercising the minds of Labour Members for some time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues about the defence implications upon the Alliance of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

NATO has maintained close consultation about the situation in South West Asia following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As I have indicated, tomorrow, in Brussels, Alliance Foreign Ministers will be joining Defence Ministers in the Defence Planning Committee to discuss the implications for NATO's defence planning of events in Arghanistan. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. Friend will, of course, be present

I thank my hon. Friend for that detailed answer. What consideration has been given to the position of Turkey in the soft underbelly of Europe, and also to the change of prioritisation, to coin a phrase, in relation to Cyprus?

I do not think that it would be proper for me to speculate on the detailed discussions that will take place, but I am sure that the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend will be subsumed in those discussions.

Have the Government had any information about the statement by Mr. Harold Brown that NATO and Japan should patrol the Gulf? I have it here in black and white, on page 7 of today's paper, and the Minister ought to have been briefed on it by his Department.

If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question I shall, of course, check. However, I think that the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I have little doubt that if the report covers discussions that are likely to take place in Brussels, my right hon. Friends will be informed about those matters.

As the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan has brought Soviet imperialism to within 300 miles of the Straits of Hormuz, are the Government and NATO satisfied that the Sultanate of Oman has enough minesweepers, and whatever else is required, for the security and surveillance of that important waterway?

My right hon. Friend had hoped to visit Oman a short time ago, but, alas, that had to be postponed. I have little doubt that when, as it is hoped, that visit is again set up, these matters will be discussed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he anticipates reaching a conclusion about the role of hovercraft in minelaying and minesweeping.

Our trials have shown that hovercraft could have useful potential in the minesweeping role. The Royal Navy's immediate needs in this respect are, however, being catered for by the continuing introduction of the dual role Hunt class mine countermeasures vessels, so it is unlikely that hovercraft would be introduced before the end of the 1980s. We have also found the hovercraft to have potential in the minelaying role, because of its high speed. Its possible use in this field is currently being considered as part of a more general review of our minelaying capability.

Does the Minister accept that those trials have been going on for a long time? Surely a decision ought to be taken now. If not, I suggest that the capabilities of manufacturing such craft will be lost. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be more cost-effective to use hovercraft than to introduce the Brecon class minesweepers, which each cost upwards of £20 million?

I am afraid that the problem relates to the equipment that would have to be fitted to the hovercraft for a minehunting role. We do not yet have equipment that is satisfactory at the high speeds at which hovercraft operate. That is one of the major limiting factors. However, there are some encouraging developments on the minelaying side, and they are presently being pursued by the hovercraft trials unit.

Can my hon. Friend say whether any of the countries which border the Straits of Hormuz have shown any interest in the experiments which are taking place, perhaps with a view to using hovercraft for minelaying and minesweeping purposes?

There is a lot of interest in hovercraft, particularly in relation to minehunting—not minesweeping. Hovercraft are not very effective for mine-sweeping, because they are not effective at low speeds. The drawback relates to the equipment that must be fitted to the hovercraft for minehunting at high speeds. I am sure that there will be a considerable interest once those problems have been solved.

In view of the disturbing intensification of the mining threat and the relative slowness of the Hunt class coming into service, as well as its expense, does the Minister agree that he ought to reconsider more urgently than the timetable that he has in mind envisages the possible introduction of hovercraft for at least one of the roles that he has mentioned?

There is a possibility with regard to minelaying, but I stress again that in relation to minehunting—the hon. Gentleman will know that limitation—there is a technical problem, which we are doing our best to solve.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider instituting a special medal for those members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who have given 10 years' continuous service.

Yes, this is under active consideration.

I thank my hon. Friend for those encouraging remarks. Can he give any indication of the timetable?

I hope that an announcement can be made soon. I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of hon. Members when I say that there is a high regard for the work carried out by the UDR. Its tenth anniversary has been marked in a number of ways, and I know that it would be widely welcomed if there were a positive decision on the question of medals.

While confirming all that the hon. Gentleman has said about the UDR and its 10-year record, will he bear in mind in all decisions regarding the force the importance of treating it as far as possible as an integral part and unit of the Army?

Yes.

When will my hon. Friend make a statement about the award of a special medal to those who served in Zimbabwe?

Order. That is a separate question altogether.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now ready to announce where updated United States medium-range nuclear weapons will be sited in the United Kingdom.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on this during the defence debate on 28 April.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people who live in areas where these sites may be located are extremely worried and concerned about them and about their own future, and believe that they should be consulted on whether the sites should be there? Is he further aware that they will be extremely concerned as a result of his answer to question No. 9 on dual control, especially bearing in mind the lack of consultation over the American rescue operation in Iran?

As my right hon. Friend has previously indicated, we shall take the decision as soon as we possibly can. The appropriate level of consultation will be carried out. I do not think that the allegation or accusation can be made against the Government that in recent weeks that they have not done all that they possible could to make the maximum amount of information available on this and other related nuclear issues.

As it is important that wherever the missiles are sited they should have adequate point defence provided by the Americans, can my hon. Friend say what progress has been made with regard to the purchase of Rapier by the United States Government.

I can tell my hon. Friend that yesterday my right hon. Friend was handed a letter in Brussels from the United States Secretary for Defence requesting that we now proceed.

The Minister says that maximum information has been made available, yet he failed to answer my question about the performance of the cruise missiles, either because he does not know or because he is concealing information. That is the fact of the matter, and the Minister should acknowledge it. He should also provide facilities for the Cruise Missile Sites Bill—

The hon. Gentleman may complete his question, but he must ask it.

Will the Government give time for that Bill, instead of getting a Government Whip to oppose it when it comes up on a Friday?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that very soon, when we are ready to announce the decision, material will be available which, we hope, will be adequate both for the case for, and the operational performance of, this system.

From the point of view of protection and security, would it not be better if the location of the missile sites were not revealed?

I think that that might be a little difficult to sustain in practice.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when next he will discuss the security of the Persian Gulf with Mr. Brown, the United States Defence Secretary.

As I have indicated, my right hon. Friend is meeting Mr. Brown and other NATO Defence Ministers today at the ministerial meeting of the NATO Defence Planning Committee, and they will be discussing a wide range of world strategic issues.

May I reiterate that the Secretary of State's statement yesterday in Brussels of support for the United States in these difficult times is very welcome indeed? My hon. Friend has spoken of the need for flexibility to act outside Europe. Does he agree that the situation in the Persian Gulf area needs to be considered urgently and that the need for Western agreement soon is very necessary?

Countering the Soviet threat in the Gulf in the first place is the responsibility of the local States. However, the United Kingdom and others in the Alliance can use their long-standing ties with the region to help enhance the States' ability to defend their own interests. We welcome the determination of President Carter's Administration to deter and, if necessary, to counter any further Soviet encroachment in the Gulf and South-West Asia generally, which has been indicated by the establishment of the United States' rapid deployment force.

Does the Minister think that the best way to win friends and influence people in the Persian Gulf is to take economic sanctions against them?

It is not for me to comment on a Bill which, I gather, is to be considered later today.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the troubled state of the Persian Gulf makes extremely regrettable the decision taken by the previous Labour Government to withdraw our minimal forces from that area?

There is widespread agreement that those force level changes have contributed to instability in the area.

I draw the attention of the Minister to the article in today's edition of The Guardian, which indicates that Mr. Brown has made it clear that America will call on NATO and Japan to help to patrol the Gulf. Is that policy to be supported by Her Majesty's Government? Is it in line with the Government's clear statement that they are opposed to further force in dealing with Iran?

As the hon. Gentleman's question is based upon a newspaper report and the speculation surrounding it, it is better to wait for my right hon. Friend's return from the NATO meeting. If the matter has been discussed at the meeting, I have no doubt that he will comment upon it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the possibility of equipping Tornado with air-launched cruise missiles.

Some outline studies have been made into the technical feasibility of equipping the Tornado GR1 aircraft with air-launched cruise missiles.

Does my hon. Friend agree that with the estimated deployment by the Soviet Union against Western Europe by 1985 of about 250 SS20 missiles, and an equal number of Backfire bombers, there is an urgent requirement for a Vulcan replacement? Will the Government give top priority to considering equipping Tornado GR1s with air-launched cruise missiles, which would have not only the role of tactical attack against airfields in East Germany and Poland, but a longer range strategic capability?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Vulcan operates in a long-range theatre nuclear role, carrying a free-fall nuclear bomb. It is felt in some quarters that an air-launched cruise missile released from a stand-off mode could be a more appropriate response to the needs of the next two decades. The question that my hon. Friend poses is largely a matter of resource.

Would it not be better if hon. Members asked questions that related to the reduction of armaments rather than to increases in armaments? Is not that what the world wants at present?

It has been said many times from this Dispatch Box that the Government wish to achieve a sensible reciprocal disarmament programme. We have said that many times. No advantage will be gained by unilateral action.

With the decision to phase out the V-bomber force, will we not fall back on the submarine-launched nuclear deterrent as our sole and principal strategic defence weapon? Will there not be an important air gap in the next few years? Is it not important for the Government to consider, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) suggested, giving every consideration to arming the GR1 with the cruise missile?

It is important for my hon. Friend to appreciate that the only strategic weapon that we have is the Polaris system. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), the Vulcan is deployed in a long-range theatre nuclear role. It is important not to confuse the two.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to assist British shipbuilders to sell naval vessels and British equipment manufacturers to sell marine equipment abroad.

The services of the Defence Sales Organisation, which is continually looking for opportunities to promote the sale of British naval vessels and marine equipment abroad, are fully available to all British shipbuilders and marine equipment manufacturers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that our competitors in these matters, the Netherlands Royal Navy, has recently completed a major cruise lasting nearly a year, with senior ministers arriving at every port to try to sell the equipment? Is he aware that if his Department is to support British shipbuilders and marine equipment manufacturers, it must move up market?

I am aware of that. I shall visit Rotterdam to attend a major naval exposition in a fortnight's time to try to do the same.

Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon other Departments, whose support is vital for any assistance of the type for which his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) calls that the end result of such assistance would be not only much-needed escort vessels, but much-needed shipbuilding jobs?

We are conscious of that fact.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 May.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Herr Hans de Koster, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the President of Gabon. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to persuade the secretary general of the TUC to call off the so-called day of action tomorrow? Although its failure may demonstrate a broad measure of support for Government policies, the holding of a political strike can only further damage the reputation and authority of the TUC.

I believe that the so-called day of action tomorrow will discredit the unions, diminish the pay packet and damage Britain. I hope that all those who believe in backing Britain will be at work tomorrow.

As, apparently, one of the right hon. Lady's objections to the day of action is that she is determined to sustain her existing policies, does she think that it would be a good idea if she had some success with those policies? She has not had any yet. Will she tell us when she thinks her Government will be able to get back to the level of inflation that we had when she took office?

The Government's policies are a matter for Parliament and not for the T.U.C.

Even though it appears that the damage caused by tomorrow's events will not be as great as was originally intended, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is incumbent upon the leadership of every party to make it clear that whatever our disagreements with Government policies—they are fundamental in this instance—the places where they are debated are at the hustings and in the House? If the day ever came when the Government were pushed off course by inaction on the streets and in the factories it would be a black day for Britain.

I am happy to say that I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be of great assistance to Britain if the Leader of the Opposition, or his Deputy, were to state where the Labour Party stands on these issues, rather than allowing it to be led by the nose by Mr. Runaway Murray?

From what they have said so far, it appears that they support the day of action, which I think is disgraceful.

Will the right hon. Lady now give the House her answer to the question that I put originally? It is one of the issues about which people have the right to demonstrate. Will she tell us when she thinks she will be able to return to the level of inflation that prevailed when she took office? If she will not give a straight answer to that queston, will she say when she will be able to return to the level of unemployment that prevailed when she took office? Will she go through the list? These are issues on which people will demonstrate throughout the country. Until she takes measures in this Parliament to stop the right of demonstration, they will have every right to do so.

I am happy to stand on the Government's record in their first year. At the end of this Parliament I shall be very happy to compare our record with that of the Opposition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the intolerable pressures that some trade unions are exerting on those individuals who do not wish to take part in the day of action? Does not the Opposition's silence finally kill their claim to speak for individual rights and civil liberties?

I am very much aware that the vast majority of trade unionists do not wish to stay away from work tomorrow. They feel very bitter, and are deeply resentful that they were not consulted about the T.U.C.'s advice.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the exchanges on this question, due to the amount of noise in the Chamber, I and, I suspect, a number of my hon. Friends were unable to hear the intervention of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) in full, and since the point that he was on was a matter of considerable public importance, I wonder whether you could enlighten me as to what you heard him say? Did he say whether he was for or against the day of action?

The hon. Gentleman was very clever to leave it until the end of his sentence.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 May.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave a short time ago.

Would the Prime Minister like to muse on the fact that next year it will be 600 years since the Peasants' Revolt, and that preparations are in hand to celebrate that anniversary in Black-heath, in the London borough of Lewisham? Will she accept that it is an English tradition for people to show their disgust with their political masters, especially when they have been conned by them? Does she accept that this is a tradition of great antiquity, which should be respected?

I think that it would be better to address our minds to the problems of the twentieth century.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be the legitimate aim of all trade union leaders to ensure that all their members can have five-star holidays? Are not the antics of the secretary general of the TUC designed to keep back the millions of trade unionists in this country? Would not the secretary general do better if he told them to stay at work tomorrow?

It is the Government's aim to enable people to raise their standards of living by going to work. They cannot raise their standards of living by not going to work.

Will the Prime Minister explain to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) exactly how she will reduce inflation at a stroke, namely, by removing tobacco and possibly alcohol, from the retail price index? If she does that, does she realise that she will be accused of cooking the books again?

That proposal has been put forward by at any rate one hon. Member. Some people think that those items need not be included in the retail price index. I have no imediate proposals to change the retail price index.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the fact that the civil population of the United Kingdom is almost defenceless in the face of a conventional or a nuclear attack? Will she therefore give greater priority to an effective civil defence system for our country?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making very good progress with his review of civil defence. I hope that he will be in a position shortly to make a statement. We all want to do more. The amount that we can do will depend upon the resources available.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that a 24-hour general strike is taking place in France, and that the French Government are not showing the hysteria that the Conservative Party has shown? Is it not clear that the day off, which will not be for everybody, will be no worse and no better than if we had a normal bank holiday? Is it not clear that the right hon. Lady was talking utter nonsense at the Perth Tory Party conference when she talked about our country losing its competitiveness because workers decided to take a day of action to show their displeasure at her policies.

We have already had two bank holidays this month. Surely that is enough, even for the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend consider what advice I might give a constituent who came to see me last Saturday?

Get a new Member of Parliament.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he was a reluctant conscript into the National Graphical Association and that he received a rather peremptory letter from his union asking him to pay £6.20 a week towards a "dispute levy "? He is anxious not to pay that money. What would my right hon. Friend advise me to tell him?

I am sure that my hon. Friend told his constituent that he had an excellent Member of Parliament. Assuming that the levy is correct according to the union's rules, that excellent Member of Parliament's advice would have been that if he did not wish to pay the amount he and his fellow union members should attend meetings until they manage to change the rules.

Does the right hon. Lady recall that a few answers ago, she confirmed that unemployment was the responsibility of the Government, not of the TUC? Did she mean that unemployment existed because the Government could no do anything about it, or that it existed as a result of deliberate Government policy?

It is certainly not the latter. The level of unemployment is partly dependent on the amount that employees take out in pay claims, and whether the company against which they make those claims and settlements can still afford to sell goods in competition with overseas companies.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 May.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that for every 10 white babies born in the United Kingdom, there is one coloured child? Is she aware that that proportion is increasing, and that even after recent measures, a sufficient number of people of different cultures come into Britain to populate a parliamentary constituency once every other year? Is she further aware that within a generation, the population of coloured people in Britain will double, and that whatever noises Opposition Members may make, it is a matter of public concern? Will she tell the House what plans the Government have to take account of the general public's proper concern?

I hope that every hon. Member will agree that those born in this country with British citizenship will have equal rights, and that they will do everything possible to secure good race relations.

Before passing judgment on the day of action, will the Prime Minister talk to the president of the Allander-Fraser Institute, who forecast that there will be 200,000 unemployed in Scotland by October? Is she aware that he also forecast that school leavers will take at least two years to find their first jobs? Will she tell the unemployed and school leavers how to spend the day of action?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have extended some of the employment opportunities offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in order to ensure that school leavers have either a job or work experience when they leave school.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing and deep disquiet—not to say anger—about known and suspected abuses of diplomatic immunity? Does she agree that those abuses include not only a multitude of minor offences, but extend to possessing and distributing firearms and explosives, and to incitement to murder? Is she satisfied that the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations is sufficiently comprehensive to deal effectively with those abuses?

We use the Vienna convention if we have reason to believe that those conventions are being flouted. We are continuously making it clear that all of those who come to this country in a diplomatic capacity are expected to observe the law of our land.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of the hundreds of workers in my constituency who will be demonstrating tomorrow will be demonstrating not because they do not want to work but because they are textile workers who have no work to go to? Is she aware that in my constituency alone three mills have closed in the last 10 days? Is she prepared to attend a meeting or to receive a deputation of leaders of the textile industry from the North-West in order to hear their plight?

I hope that that deputation will go, in the first place, either to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. But of course, in the last resort, I am always willing to receive deputations representing industries as important as textiles.