asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current civilian staff at RAF Ely, what percentage this is of the total complement; and if he will make a statement in respect of future job opportunities for civilians at the hospital.

There are 144 civilians currently employed at RAF Ely representing 95 percent, of the total complement of the hospital or 0·5 per cent, of the Air Force Department's total civilian complement. As the hon. Member knows, a number of studies are under way which could affect the future level of civilian employment at the RAF hospital and elsewhere in the RAF. I hope to let him know the outcome of the studies at RAF Ely shortly.

I am grateful for that reply. Will the Minister bear in mind the ever-worsening employment situation in Ely, especially in view of yesterday's announced closure of the Ely sugar beet factory? Will he continue the happy relationship of direct employment, rather than the deployment of remote agencies in order to supervise work for the RAF hospital?

I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. I can assure him that the contract studies will not be proceeded with unless it can be demonstrated that there will be a genuine saving.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many East Anglians are extremely grateful for the facilities which are extended by the Royal Air Force hospital in Ely to civilians in the area, not only by way of job opportunities but by way of the medical facilities that it provides? For example, the hon. and learned Member for Colchester had his left knee dealt with by that hospital. The cartilege was removed swiftly and safely. A similar facility is given to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and his constituents and many others in the area.

Was it a long operation?

It was a successful one.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he considers that the strategic value of installing cruise missiles on British and German soil is weakened by the French Government's refusal to grant similar facilities.

:No, Sir.

Will the Secretary of State tell the Prime Minister that when she meets President Reagan on 25 February she should point out that there is no longer a bipartisan approach in this country to nuclear weapons, and that, in view of the widespread opinion that exists in the Labour movement, once it is returned to power it will oppose the installation of cruise missiles in this country?

The Prime Minister is already aware of the hon. Gentleman's views. It is a little more difficult to define the present Labour Party and its views. However, I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's opinion in that regard.

Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the deterrent effect of cruise missiles and the need to site them in Europe because of their limited range? Will he take this opportunity to counter the myth that, because these missiles are based on selected sites in this country there is an increased likelihood of those areas being attacked, when the truth is that in the event of a nuclear attack nowhere in the United Kingdom or in any NATO country would be safe?

My hon. Friend is correct. The United Kingdom is bound to be a target—if I may use that expression—in any conventional or nuclear war. It is a major industrial and economic nation. It would be the base from which NATO was reinforced. In fact, the introduction of cruise missiles will spread nuclear weapons more evenly throughout Europe than happens at present.

If, as is becoming increasingly clear, the Norwegian, Danish, Dutch and Belgian Governments all refuse to have the missiles on their territory, will Britain do the same?

It is not by any means clear that the Netherlands and Belgium will take that view. It was never intended that Norway and Denmark should be sites for cruise missiles. If Germany, Italy and Britain agree to site the missiles on our respective territories, that in itself will provide a very effective deterrent to comparable nuclear exchanges from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact countries.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the French already have medium-range ballistic missiles on the Plateau D'Albion submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the Pluton tactical nuclear weapon and the force de frappe, and therefore have more nuclear weapons than we have?

The French have a significant nuclear capability. They were not consulted because they are not part of the NATO integrated military structure. There was nothing more to it than that.

Is not the time overdue for the Government to seek urgent disarmament talks with the Soviet Union and the United States, before the American-controlled weapons are installed on British soil? Have the Government such plans, and if not, why not?

The Government are doing everything in their power to further arms limitation and control. The question relates to the cruise missile, and it is, therefore, worth noting that, until it was agreed with NATO that we should proceed with the modernisation of long-range theatre nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union refused to come to the negotiating table on arms limitation. Indeed, it was NATO's decision to go ahead with the modernisation programme that brought about the discussions in Geneva.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when, on the basis of the Government's present expenditure plans, the percentage of central and local government expenditure devoted to defence is expected to rise to the average prevailing in the years 1964–65 to 1969–70.

Although the proportion of total public expenditure devoted to defence is planned to continue to rise it will not reach the average level obtained in 1964–65 to 1969–70 by the end of the current planning period in 1983–84.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the Labour Government of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) from 1964 to 1970 average defence expenditure expressed as a proportion of overall Government expenditure was approximately 15·5 per cent, and that last year it was only 11·6 per cent.? Would not a one third increase be required for it to rise again to the level of the period between 1964 and 1970? As it is acknowledged that the level of Soviet threat is substantially higher today than in the 1960s, is there not a danger of a credibility gap between the Government's rhetoric and their performance? Will the Government address themselves to the matter before the Prime Minister visits Washington later this month?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to an increase of 3 per cent.., in accordance with the NATO target. I am not sure that defence expenditure as a percentage of total public expenditure is the correct measure to take. By 1983–84 we shall be spending approximately the same proportion of our GDP on defence as we were in the 1950s and 1960s. Defence expenditure now is rising faster than other public expenditure programmes, and we should be satisfied with that. I agree that a massive threat faces us, but in the end we should look to the output of defence expenditure—how we are conducting our tasks—as well as the input of money.

As the 1950s have been referred to, will the Minister accept that some of us remember when the Churchill Government took over and had to cut the armament programme because there was not enough steel? Can we be sure that we have sufficient steel and coal to carry out this increase in armament production?

The hon. Gentleman need have no fears on that count.

Bearing in mind our shrinking industrial base, will the Minister confirm that we already spend a much larger proportion of our GNP on defence than any of our European Allies? Is it true that with the overspend this year we shall be spending the same proportion as our American Allies?

It is broadly correct that this year we shall be spending more of our GDP on defence than any of our European Allies, although the figures are subject to all sorts of qualifications. We shall not know the final figures for some time, but it may well be that the proportion of our GDP spent on defence will not be much different from that of the United States. Given the threat that faces us, the hon. Gentleman should be pleased about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the analysis of "Operation Crusader" has shown a need for the purchase by the Army of new cross country vehicles.

Analysis of "Exercise Crusader" has not so far indicated a need for new cross country vehicles other than those already in the programme.

Will the Minister confirm that during the exercise Army vehicles became stuck in the mud and broke down? Will he reconsider his decision and put in an order for Stonefield vehicles, which can adequately replace the Army's clapped-out vehicles?

I suspect that there has never been a major Army exercise without vehicles being stuck in the mud. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Army's vehicles stood up well during the exercise.

In the event of the Army looking for new and more modern vehicles, will consideration be given to all-British manufactured vehicles, and, if such vehicles are being manufactured in Scotland, will they be given serious consideration?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Does not the Under-Secretary realise, without the need for analysis, the urgent requirement which exists for a new generation of British tanks? Will he consider doing away with the nonsense of spending so much on Trident and use the money to procure a new generation of British tanks?

More tanks are in operation in BAOR at present than when the hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Army. The Army's tank procurement programme is substantial.

When will the Government publish a detailed report on "Operation Crusader', as, four months ago, the Minister's predecessor said would happen? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we should then be in a better position to analyse the value and success of the exercise and, incidentally, to demonstrate the need for and the excellence of the Stonefield vehicle for military purposes, as well as its vital importance to the Scottish Economy?

The analysis will be completed in the near future. The hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members will then be invited to a presentation on the results.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to introduce new bilateral arrangements with the Federal Republic of Germany to offset the foreign exchange costs of the British Army of the Rhine?

The last Anglo-German offset agreement, which was negotiated by the previous Administration, stated that bilateral offset arrangements would cease when the agreement expired on 31 March 1980, and there are no plans to re-open negotiations.

Is the Minister aware that that answer is unsatisfactory, when we are spending well over £1,200 million on our forces in West Germany, £762 million of which is in foreign exchange, which is a direct debit to our balance of payments and a subsidy to West Germany and which is equal to our recent rebate from the EEC? Does he agree that it is intolerable for a country in our straitened circumstances to be subsidising West Germany in that way?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that host nations support is being actively considered throughout the Alliance. He referred to a figure of £762 million as the cost across the exchanges. In the coming financial year, for the first time, that figure should fall rather than increase.

As the main threat which confronts NATO and the central front is an armoured one, will my hon. Friend and his colleagues consider the possibility of using close air support to the greatest possible extent so that aircraft used in this country are mobile and can react quickly to that threat?

Yes. All methods of dealing with the tank threat are being considered.

Will not arrangements of this kind be a grotesque anachronism, at a time when we have an embarrassingly large surplus on our balance of payments and are seriously worried about the high exchange rate?

There are no plans to have bilateral talks with the Germans on this matter. However, the cost of host nation support is a matter of concern throughout the Alliance.

Does the Minister appreciate that the cost of BAOR in the 1970s went up sixfold and that the defence budget is under intense pressure? Will he confirm or deny that he is considering bringing home a divisional headquarters from Germany? Is he examining the possibility of withdrawing more troops from Germany and stationing them on hand in this country, so that they can fly out in an emergency?

I am not responsible for the story which appeared in The Times this morning. I assure the hon. Gentleman that next year, for the first time in decades, the foreign exchange cost of British forces in Germany will fall rather than increase.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will study the effect on recruitment into the forces of the widely differing living conditions and differing general facilities available to officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks; and if he will make a statement.

I do not consider that such a study would serve any useful purpose.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is widely accepted in industry that business efficiency can be improved by removing discrimination between various types of employees? Does he accept that the Japanese, who have taken the lead in this matter, have shown that this sort of teamwork greatly improves the range of business? Does he therefore agree that more of this type of teamwork is needed in the Armed Forces? Is not this sort of apartheid abhorrent to many young people, whatever their political viewpoint?

That question only shows that it is time that the hon. Member paid another visit to some of the Armed Forces. If he talked to people at a variety of levels in the Armed Forces, he would find that the apartheid, as he likes to call it, is something that they desire. They wish to be in separate groupings. If he does not accept that point, I should be happy to arrange a visit for him as soon as he likes.

Is not this a most mischievous question? Does not any armed force depend on hierarchy, including the Soviets? In the British forces, is not there a great esteem and respect between the different ranks?

As always, what my hon. Friend says is correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects next to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues to discuss the future planning of the alliance.

At the spring meetings of the Alliance's nuclear planning group and defence planning committee.

When the Secretary of State meets his colleagues in NATO will he impress upon them the need to respond positively to the demands of the United States that we should improve our defences in Western Europe, particularly on the Turkish front? At the same time, will he make it clear to the Americans that there is no support for the neutron bomb in the NATO Alliance, and that if a request were to be made for it to be stationed in Europe permission would be refused by all countries concerned?

On the first point, we shall give every support to the United States. On the latter point, there are no proposals by the United States for the deployment of neutron warheads—enhanced radiation warheads—in Europe. The American Defence Secretary has made it clear that before that happens, he will have full consultation with his European allies. Therefore, no proposals are now before us.

Will my right hon. Friend emphasise to our allies that there is an increasing feeling that the geographical guidelines of NATO are irrelevant?

It depends a little on which country one is in as to the opinion one holds on those subjects.

As the decision to deploy cruise missiles in Europe was justified on the basis that it would accelerate disarmament talks and obviate the necessity for either cruise missiles or Soviet SS20s, when can we expect a major initiative from the Government to get those talks going?

As I said in answer to an earlier question, it was not until a firm decision was made by our European allies to go ahead with the long-range theatre nuclear weapons modernisation that the Soviet Union agreed to come to arms limitation talks in Geneva. It refused twice. It was only when it was clear that the NATO Alliance intended to go forward with this programme that their representatives came to the negotiating table. That must show that the Soviet Union only understands strength. It does not understand the sort of weakness that the hon. Gentleman advocates.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the armed forces in Northern Ireland in 1978, 1979 and 1980, respectively.

The estimated extra costs of military operations in Northern Ireland for the past three years are:—

The Minister has carefully refrained from answering my question, which asked for the total cost and not the extra or additional costs. I have not received a proper answer because this matter seems to be a sacred cow. The Minister should give me a proper answer to the question. What is the total cost?

I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman wanted to know the extra cost. The cost of paying, feeding and clothing the units in Northern Ireland would be the same whether they were in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my question has, deliberately, not been answered—

Before the hon. Gentleman puts his point of order, I should point out that he will stop anyone else from asking a supplementary question if he gives notice now that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment. He can make his point of order in a moment.

Is it not clear from the Minister's reply that the cost of maintaining in Northern Ireland a part of our necessary total forces is extremely small in relation to the total cost or our defence preparations?

That is so. Most people would agree that a national army gives infinitely better protection to the people of Northern Ireland than would private armies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while there may have been some doubts about the wisdom of sending in the troops in the first place, successive Governments have shown clearly that there is a commitment to maintain policing in Northern Ireland and to sustain it?

:" That is so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory answer—it was no answer to the question that I asked—I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has waited to make his point of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will hold discussions with the United States Secretary of Defence on the use of chemical weapons.

I have no plans to do so.

Has the Secretary of State gone back on the public statement last month—[Interruption.] I cannot hear myself speak.

Order. I thought it was the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends sitting behind him who were making a noise.

Has the Secretary of State gone back on the public statement by his predecessor last month to the effect that Britain should consider achieving a chemical warfare system capacity? What was the Ministry of Defence team doing in America recently?

Whenever a Ministry of Defence team visits the United States it discusses every aspect of the Warsaw Pact's capability, including nuclear, conventional and chemical weapons. The discussions were normal and nothing more. There are no plans to deploy chemical weapons hers at present. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, somehow committed this country to specific talks on chemical weapons with the United States. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to produce the statement to which he refers.

Does my right hon. Friend have any information about the possession by the Warsaw Pact countries of chemical weapons?

The Warsaw Pact has a large offensive capability in chemical weapons. That is of grave concern to the NATO Alliance. We are increasing our ability on the defensive side to resist an attack by chemical weapons.

The right hon. Gentleman says that there are no plans at present to deploy chemical weapons in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any such plans under discussion?

No.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear in public that Warsaw Pact chemical and gas weapons are not in reserve but in the front line?

Certainly. My hon. Friend is correct. The Warsaw Pact has a large offensive capability in these weapons that is of grave concern to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, following his statement of 20 January on the Defence Estimates for 1981–82, he will announce what measures are currently being taken to improve the air defences of the United Kingdom air defence region.

A substantial programme of improvements to the United Kingdom's air defences is now in hand. The Sky Flash medium range missile is in service and the Sidewinder AIM 9L short range missile, produced by a European consortium, will enter RAF service next year.

I am grateful for that reply. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State's announcement on 20 January that an extra Lightning squadron was not to be formed, that half the complement of the No. 8 Shackleton early warning squadron was to be withdrawn from service, that Sky Flash II was not to be procured, and that further orders of Hawk aircraft were not to take place gave the impression that the United Kingdom's air defence was diminishing? Does he agree that the defence of the United Kingdom must be given a high priority as it secures sea lanes across the Channel and the east Atlantic and is vital to the reinforcement of NATO in Europe?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement on 20 January, the decision, made necessary by budgetary pressures, is to concentrate any reductions in our capability on older weapons systems and aircraft which are already due to be phased out.

Are not fewer fighter aircraft defending Britain's skies today than when the Minister assumed responsibility in May 1979? Is it not disgraceful that the loud-mouthed patriots behind the Minister, who made such a scene about the number of air defence aircraft when they were in Opposition, should now adopt an attitude of craven silence, in the light of the Minister's disgraceful neglect of the country's air defence?

It is not true that fewer aircraft are defending us.

Publish the numbers.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in his day it was not the practice to publish the numbers and we shall not publish them. What he says is not true. I have not noticed any craven silence on the part of my hon. Friends.

Did my hon. Friend notice the report in The Daily Telegraph this morning to the effect that the cutback in aircraft will probably increase the risk of accidents and seriously jeopardise our combat capability? Has he a comment to make on that?

The reductions in training caused by a desire to reduce the amount of fuel used will have no impact whatsoever on the safety levels of the Royal Air Force.

How many hours are flown by RAF crews in pursuit of the defence of the United Kingdom compared with the number of hours flown under the same procedures on 4 May 1979? Does the Minister remember his brave words from the Dispatch Box on 23 June last year when he and his hon. Friends made an attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved)? Is not the House owed an explanation about the Minister's failures and is not my hon. Friend owed an apology?

No. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question I shall provide the figures that he requires.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the next defence White Paper.

Shortly before Easter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends think that that Defence White Paper should continue to show the increases in expenditure that are so crucial to Britain's defence, with particular attention to the decision to be taken on the choice between the AV8B and the GR5 and the future of the European combat aircraft?

My hon. Friend will have an early opportunity, in the White Paper on public expenditure, to consider the increase in defence expenditure. It will be published before the defence White Paper. We are still considering the question of the European combat aircraft. I hope that consideration will not be further delayed. I should like to speed up the processes, but they are complicated. They involve the procurement of systems to be used 10 years or 15 years ahead. We cannot rush, but in due course we shall have an answer to the question.

Earlier, the Secretary of State said that the Soviet Union came to the negotiating table only when nuclear weapons had been installed in Britain. Later he said that we had not yet acquired chemical weapons. When his earlier answer is applied to chemical weapons the logic is that we should now acquire chemical weapons in order to persuade the Soviet Union to discuss the abolition of such weapons.

There is logic and distorted logic. The hon. Gentleman was applying the latter rather than the former. I did not follow his reasoning.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our response to the challenge of Soviet imperialism cannot be confined within cash limits? Does he recall that Mr. Neville Chamberlain, when he embarked on his experiment in detente with Hitler in 1938, spent 6 per cent, of the GNP on defence, and 12 per cent, in 1939 before the occupation of Prague? Does he recall that Mr. Attlee, at the height of the Korean war, spent 11 per cent, of the GNP on defence? Will he address himself to the danger of the problem rather than to the economic difficulties that face us at the present time?

It would be pleasant for all of us—for my right hon. and hon. Friends and for Opposition Members—if we were not constrained by cash limits in our private or public lives. I am afraid, however, that there are limits to the resources of this country. Cash limits help Governments to keep within those resources. I must, therefore, repeat my support for the system of cash limits. I shall take note of the pre-war examples that my right hon. Friend has given. In regard to the present position, we are increasing our defence expenditure in real terms. It is going up faster than any other programme.

That is right.

We must ensure that the output—the manner in which we use resources going into defence—is deployed in the most effective way to meet the Warsaw Pact threat. It is there and—I agree with my right hon. Friend—it is growing.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Defence Estimates this year will be as detailed as those presented last year, which was a pleasant state of affairs?

Yes, they will be, but we are trying to keep the price of the White Paper down.

When the Secretary of State draws up his White Paper, will he bear in mind that many people believe that we are living beyond our means in defence terms? As a result, we are short of 3,000 men in the Armed Services because we cannot pay them. Our aircraft are not flying as they should be flying. Our tanks have not got enough fuel. We are preparing to fight on too wide a front. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to enter into negotiations with our NATO allies to review our role in NATO?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a danger that we will spread our effort too thinly. I agree with him, and with my predecessor, that there is a need to examine the present health of the Alliance—the phrase that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House used. We shall be considering all these questions within a NATO context. We shall be discussing them with our allies. These are important questions. I am addressing myself to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he expects cash limits to be exceeded by his Department in 1980–81.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence which items he expects to be affected by reductions in expenditure in 1981–82 to offset the anticipated overspend in 1980–81.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence by what amount his Department expects to overspend its cash limits for 1980–81.

The current expectation is of an overspend of about £260 million. This will be reflected in a Supplementary Estimate to be presented to the House tomorrow. However, I am continuing to take steps to restrain expenditure.

Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the same rules to overspending of cash limits in his Department as are applied to the Departments of Health and Social Security, Education, Industry and all the others? If he is not applying the same rules, that is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs. Should he not be introducing, or seeking to persuade the Government to introduce, Supplementary Estimates for other Departments?

The hon. Gentleman asked me the question and I gave him the answer. He then asked the question again. I do not think that there is any point in reading out the answer a second time. I have already answered the question in my first reply.

Is it not a fact that, in the economic crisis that this country faces, we cannot afford the current level of defence expenditure and there should be some offset arrangement for the cash excesses this year? Should we not follow the example of Japan, which spends less that 1 per cent, of GNP on defence while, at the same time, leading the world in the production of goods and services that people need? Is not that the lesson of Datsun coming here?

We have to afford the current level of defence expenditure because we are faced with a threat to our freedom and liberty. The hon. Gentleman would not be sitting in the House and putting these questions to me if we were not protecting ourselves and deterring aggression by other countries. I think that the current level of defence expenditure is essential, I entirely support the NATO target:, which the hon. Gentleman and the House know well.

Since the Secretary of State has said that he does not intend to make apocalyptic choices to deal with the budgetary pressures which he will undoubtedly face—I take it that he includes Trident as one of the apocalyptic choices that he does not want to make— how on earth is the readiness of our Armed Forces to survive the constant cutting of men, equipment, exercises, fuel and training that will go on if he continues in the present way?

That is the reverse of the real situation. We are not cutting in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Next year we shall be spending £1,000 million more on defence than this year. Our planned increases are substantial. Since we took office, and including the year to come, defence expenditure has grown by around 8 per cent. It is untrue, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that we are cutting. We are increasing.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 February.

This morning I had! meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Has my right hon. Friend considered with her ministerial colleagues the possibility of relocating the seat of government to the county of Humberside where the Conservative-controlled council has reduced the rates by 6p in the pound? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of congratulating the Conservative council there on its excellent record and perhaps give her view on Labour authorities that jack up the rates with a consequent loss of jobs and industrial opportunities?

I certainly take the opportunity of congratulating Humberside on being able to reduce its rates by 6p in the pound in spite of a reduction, I understand, in the rate support grant. I understand that Humberside has been very efficient in reducing the numbers employed, mostly by natural wastage, not by redundancy. I understand that there has been a reduction of 3,000 by natural wastage. The county, nevertheless, has a very good pupil teacher ratio. It has a very good all round record. I congratulate it.

Has the right hon. Lady had the chance today to apply her mind to the question of the growing coal crisis? While we are extremely grateful for the fact that the Government have abandoned the stance that they appeared to be taking on Tuesday and Thursday last week, against having the tripartite meeting for which I asked, does she not think it absurd that the country should have to wait until next Monday for that meeting to take place? Will she give orders that it should take place at once?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be having a meeting with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. It was at first fixed for next Monday because it was thought that date was convenient to everyone. Since then, a message has come in with a request for a much earlier meeting. My right hon. Friend will be making a statement about it after questions. It is expected to take place tomorrow.

I thank the right hon. Lady once again for having agreed to the proposal which the National Union of Mineworkers put forward this morning, which it put forward yesterday, and to which the Government could have agreed. I thank the right hon. Lady. Will she now agree that all proposals from the National Coal Board or the Government will be held up until those conversations have taken place?

I imagine that tomorrow morning the area boards will carry on with their meetings with the areas. As one would expect, they took place yesterday, this morning, and are due to take place on Wednesday. They will need to do so to get the facts out about what their proposals are. I understand from the advice that I have received that there are far fewer pits to be closed than has been rumoured and, similarly, far fewer jobs to be lost than has been rumoured. It is absolutely vital that any talks should be conducted on the basis of the facts. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks. It is a rare treat.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the trade figures for January, which show a surplus of £957 million? Would she care to comment on them?

It is an excellent result and shows that our exports are very high—[Interruption.] It also shows that imports have declined. However, in the past three months, exports have increased in volume. We should congratulate all those in industry—both management and work force—on achieving that excellent result.

Will the Prime Minister accept that most of us welcome the fact that the tripartite talks have been brought forward to tomorrow? Given the amount of the public sector borrowing requirement that is committed for redundancy pay and unemployment benefit, would it not be more fruitful to explore the National Coal Board's proposals for greater forward investment instead of considering greater expenditure on redundancy pay for coal miners?

The Government have honoured the "Plan for Coal," which was produced in 1974. We are particularly anxious that extra money should go into pits for the future. This year, investment amounts to about £800 million. The greater part of that amount comes from money that is supplied through the external finance limit, by taxpayers.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 17 February.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm today's reports that the public offer of 50 per cent, of the shares in British Aerospace was oversubscribed three and a half times, with many employee and small share applications? Why do not the Government sell off the remaining 50 per cent, of the shares and speed up the programme of denationalisation?

My hon. Friend is right. The sale of shares in British Aerospace was oversubscribed by a factor of three. Approximately 40 per cent, of eligible employees applied for shares and an unusually large number of small applications—well over 100,000—were allocated in full. That augurs well for future issues of shares in nationalised industries. As regards my hon. Friend's second question, the shares were issued on the basis that the Government would retain a major shareholding. Therefore, there is no question of doing as my hon. Friend wishes, as retention of that major shareholding formed part of the understanding.

Will the Prime Minister reflect today on the fact that the Disabled Persons Bill—which has the support of 267 hon. Members—was blocked last Friday by those who sit on the Government side of the House? Does the right hon. Lady support the Bill? If not, why not?

Naturally, we all wish to do as much as we can for the disabled. The Government have increased a number of benefits—including the mobility allowance—by amounts that are far higher than the rate of inflation. Wishes and good intention are never quite enough. We must steadily try to improve the economy in order to make resources available. In the meantime, the disabled are affected by the number of professional people in the National Health Service. I should point out that the number of doctors in the National Health Service has increased by more than 2,000 and that the number of nurses has increased by more than 10,000.

Answer the question.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to note that the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill showed—despite the free vote in this House to the contrary—that the Government apparently do recognise that the death penalty is a deterrent, at least in the Armed Forces? Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider extending that deterrent for the protection of the civilian section of the community? If not will she consider the proposal of a referendum on the subject?

There has always been a free vote on the death penalty. Indeed, in this Parliament there has already been a free vote on this subject. Given that free vote, the Government are unlikely to reopen the question.

Will the right hon. Lady find time today to study reports on the effective and orderly lobby that was mounted yesterday by frustrated and angry textile workers? Do the right hon. Lady and her Government think that the textile industry is a strategic industry? Do the Government intend to maintain it as a viable industry?

The textile industry is extremely important. It employs well over 600,000, people and is a very big provider of jobs. Certain parts of the industry are very good at exporting. The multi-fibre arrangement will come up for renegotiation. The Government intend to pursue a vigorous new arrangement with the Commission.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dastardly plan by the petrol monopolies to do away with the gallon in the fourth quarter of this year? As I know my right hon. Friend's instinct for popular feeling, may I ask her to do whatever she can to prevent that crime from being committed?

I am all in favour of the gallon, although I know that some people purchase petrol in accordance with a particular cash amount. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I am for the gallon.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

With reference to the question asked earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), does not the Prime Minister realise that for several years pit closures have gone on at a steady pace? Does not the right hon. Lady realise that in the past six years about 46 closures have taken place? Why has the National Coal Board taken such rapid action to close pits? Did not the Government tell the NCB that it had to break even in 1982? Have they not compelled the NCB to take this action? If so, are not the Prime Minister and the Government responsible?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, pit closures have been going on for a number of years. In the past decade there have been, on average, eight pit closures per annum. In the previous decade, pit closures took place at the rate of 40 per annum. There is nothing new about pit closures. Many pits become geologically exhausted and have to be closed.

asked the Prime Minister when she next plans to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

No further dates have yet been arranged.

In view of the need to compete with Germany and Japan, does my right hon. Friend think it is appropriate to have a forum in which British industry's winners and losers in the years ahead can be discussed? If so, does my right hon. Friend think that NEDC is the best place for such discussion?

NEDC is concerned with much deeper economic factors. It is concerned with increasing the rate of productivity, investment and profitability. It tries to look ahead. It is useful that the Government, the CBI, financiers, banks and tradeunions should be able to discuss such matters. In addition, the sector working parties draw attention to matters that affect particular industries. Their reports are particularly valuable and can alert us to things that need to be done.

Does the Prime Minister realise that a few moments ago she was extremely complacent in her assessment of the balance of payments position? Does she not accept that one reason for those figures has been the virtual cessation of the purchase of essential raw materials by large sections of British industry? Does she not recognise that when the oil has gone there will be very little left in many areas of the United Kingdom?

I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. For years we were bedevilled by an adverse balance of payments. At the moment we have a very good balance of payments—one that countries such as West Germany envy.