asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the deployment of British forces in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

A rapid airlift of Service personnel and equipment from the United Kingdom was undertaken by the Royal Air Force, with help from the United States Air Force, immediately after the signing of the ceasefire agreement. Monitoring teams have now been deployed throughout Rhodesia to observe and report on the maintenance of the ceasefire. The total strength of the organisation is currently about 1,450 Service personnel from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya and Fiji.

I would like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the professionalism of these Service men, their high morale and the courage and initiative with which they have undertaken this unique and demanding task.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that he carries the whole House with him in his tribute to our armed forces, who, I am sure, will display the same humanity, courage and resolution that they have shown in Northern Ireland? Will he assure the House that the support, logistic and otherwise, that is necessary for our armed forces to undertake that almost impossible task will be forthcoming from our resources and those of our allies, should that be necessary?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. I can give him the assurance that he asked for.

What are the latest instructions to British forces for dealing with guerrilla units that have not gone to the agreed assembly points? What steps is the Minister taking to prevent further clashes and casualties which could arise when former Muzorewa Government security forces meet guerrilla units?

It is the role of the force from the Commonwealth to monitor ceasefire activities, under the direction of the Governor. Thus far they have achieved that objective remarkably successfully.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the forces in Rhodesia are adequately armed to deal with any contingency that may arise?

Because their role is to monitor the ceasefire, they are armed only for their personal protection.

Does the Minister agree that, if there was a close liaison with the Government to make sure that British forces were on the spot to monitor what the Rhodesian security forces are doing, they would be better able to do their job? Is not the killing of guerrillas who were seeking to give up fighting to be deplored?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the monitoring force was not in any way involved in that incident. The degree of co-operation and liaison that has been achieved is expressed by the results so far. I would not like the House to be under any illusion that the exercise that the armed forces are engaged in is other than extremely demanding and hazardous. We hope that it will be carried through to a successful conclusion.

I welcome the help given by the Americans, but may I ask whether the size and type of assistance given by the American airlift suggests that our own airlift capabilities have been run down rather too fast?

We are very grateful for the help that we received from the United States Air Force. I must point out that about two-thirds of the sorties that were required to move the stores were undertaken by the RAF and slightly more than one-third by the USAF. It would have been possible for the RAF to carry out the whole exercise but it would have taken longer. Clearly, timing was the essence of the exercise and therefore we were grateful for the assistance of the USAF which enabled the movement of troops to be completed so quickly.

I agree with the Secretary of State about the monitoring force, which has a unique and demanding role. I would not wish to make it any harder or more demanding. Is the Secretary of State aware that some of us are a little worried about the South African forces at the Beitbridge? Is there any way in which this anomalous and indefensible situation can be righted, even if it means more work for the monitoring forces?

That is really a matter for the Governor and, in so far as it affects this House, for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. Clearly, this is an important matter which has been fully considered, as have all aspects of the issue. A certain view has been taken by the Governor, and I cannot add anything to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear weapons Great Britain has destroyed as a result of nuclear disarmament talks at any time since their introduction.

None. The United Kingdom is a party to all the nuclear arms control treaties open to it and has fulfilled all its obligations under them. None of these has required us to destroy any of our nuclear weapons.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that it is appalling that none of the negotiated nuclear reductions has ever taken place or that no obsolete weapons have been destroyed, dismantled or withdrawn from service? Will he give an undertaking that he will withdraw the 572 Pershing 1 and cruise missiles from service, and if necessary, under international inspection, destroy them once they are taken out of service?

The hon. Member has referred to weapon systems that belong to the United States. They are not British weapons. As the hon. Member knows, the United States has made an offer about the withdrawal of warheads which has so far received a negative response. There has been no involvement of British weapons in the theatre nuclear force modernisation to which the hon. Member referred.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many nuclear weapons the Soviet Union has destroyed, and how much that country has spent on nuclear weapons in the last three years?

I do not know how much the Soviet Union has spent, but I know that it has been very slow in withdrawing some nuclear warheads—especially the SS4s and SS5s which had been expected to be withdrawn at a certain rate. In the meantime, Russian SS20s have been built up at a rate which causes the Alliance considerable concern.

Has the Secretary of State read the speech in another place by Lord Carver, the former Chief of Defence Staff? If he has not, will he do so; and, if he has, did he notice the statement of the former Chief of Defence Staff to the effect that in 20 years he had never found a single realistic scenario in which Britain would use the nuclear deterrent independently? Is it not, as Lord Carver said, simply political machismo that has kept that deterrent going?

Lord Carver is entitled to his opinion, as is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). The Government have a responsibility for the security of the realm. It has been, and it remains, our view that nuclear weapons of various types are a necessary element of our defence capability.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether purpose-built intelligence centres exist for training members of the armed forces and others to withstand coercive methods of interrogation such as interrogation in depth; how many such centres there are; what training is given; and how many personnel have been involved in such training, both officers and other ranks.

There are three Service establishments at which facilities exist for training in resistance to interrogation. The training, which is voluntary, is designed to give certain special categories of Service men who are prone to capture in time of war additional confidence to resist interrogation techniques to which they could be subjected. In the last full training year some 340 personnel received such training.

Will the Minister tell us whether the torture of trainees is included in the training given in these establishments? Will he tell us whether there is any evidence that the experience of torture has the effect of increasing the victime's resistance to torture later on?

The use of the word "torture" is not in any way justified by the training given. Certainly there is a degree of physical hardship and mental stress involved in that training, but it is done under medical supervision. Those involved are volunteers and, although there are many who wish to take part in this training, there are not enough places for them. The hon. Member's comments are not justified.

Will the Minister bear in mind the experience of our troops who were captured in Korea? In view of the recent advancement in brainwashing techniques, would it not be highly irresponsible for this Government not to ensure that our officers and senior warrant officers were trained, both in resisting capture and resisting the techniques that might be used upon them by a potential enemy?

I think that the training that is undertaken is wholly justified and it would be wrong if our Service men were denied this opportunity.

Would the Government not be better employed in supporting international efforts for the abolition of torture rather than indulging in experimenting in it?

We have certainly co-operated with the efforts of Amnesty International in the past. Obviously we are not involved in torturing anyone, but we do believe that it is right and proper that this training should be given to our own Service personnel where it is appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement outlining the Government's up-to-date policy on nuclear weapons.

Until we can ensure peace and stability in Europe without the need for nuclear weapons, the Government believe that NATO must maintain a full range of such weapons to deter potential aggressors.

What is the most up-to-date estimate of the increase in public expenditure required for the new theatre nuclear forces and the replacement of Polaris? What possible justification is there for increasing public expenditure on such weapons of mass destruction, especially when this Tory Government are cutting back on public expenditure on essential social services such as housing and education?

Afghanistan.

The overwhelming proportion of the cost of the modernisation programme of long range theatre nuclear weapons will be borne by our ally, the United States. The cost of the United Kingdom contribution to that programme is of the order of £10 million, which is comparatively modest, bearing in mind the benefit that will accrue from it. The justification for increasing defence expenditure, as the Conservative Party has long made clear, is the fact that the world is becoming less safe rather than more safe, and it is the priority and responsibility of any Government to protect the realm. That is why we attach such importance to defence.

Is it the intention of the Government to site any of these nuclear weapons in the territory of Gibraltar?

There is no such plan to do so, or thought of doing so, at present.

Should we not show our faith in the NATO Alliance and the United States' participation in it by doing away with our so-called independent nuclear deterrent?

This Government and our predecessors have taken the view that the independent nuclear deterrent in the hands of the United Kingdom is an important addition to the deterrence capability of the whole Alliance. Not only do this Government support that view, but all our allies are of the same view—in other words, it is an added strength to the Alliance for the United Kingdom to have this independent nuclear deterrent of its own.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the deployment by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of new United States nuclear missiles in certain Western Europe countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress being achieved towards a theatre nuclear deterrent.

I have nothing to add to the statement that I made to the House on 13 December.

Lest discussion on this crucial issue becomes unnecessarily confused, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the result of the modernisation programme is to replace Pershing launchers by an equal number and to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in Europe? If so, will he accept that that policy of modernisation without proliferation is to be warmly welcomed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. We never intended this decision to cause the nuclear element of the Alliance's defence capability to increase. It was the modernisation of a capability of a certain propor- tion. It was not the purpose to increase that proportion.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that recent events in Afghanistan abundantly vindicate the strong line taken by Her Majesty's Government over theatre nuclear deterrents? Will he continue—with the support, at least, of the Conservative side of the House—to exert pressure on other members of NATO to accept bases?

I believe that those sentiments will be echoed much wider than merely on this side of the House. The events in Afghanistan during the recess have given the clearest possible expression of the kind of activity that certain countries—the Soviet Union, in this case—are prepared to undertake, given the possibility. This underlines the need for us to make sure all the time that we and our allies are capable, between us, of protecting ourselves.

Are not these missiles of a single key type with no British control? Do they not, therefore, put Britain directly in the retaliation firing line if a nuclear bomb is dropped, by design or accident, on a Russian city?

Unfortunately, nothing can alter the fact that Britain, in any case, is in the firing line, as we have been, I suppose, throughout our history and very much so since the Second World War. Nothing will alter that. On control, I explained to the House before Christmas that the arrangements are the same as those which were in force before, and as exist now in the case of a certain United States' weapon. I have nothing further to say about that.

Will the Secretary of State explain how he can justify the statement he and his hon. Friends make, namely—that our theatre nuclear weapons—our independent nuclear deterrent—exist to deter the Russians when the right hon. Gentleman claims that detente has been ended by the Russians due to their invasion of Afghanistan? Why did not nuclear weapons deter that invasion?

I do not think that I have said that detente has come to an end. That is what the hon. Gentleman says. But people have been made to look with a rather different eye upon the claims made by the Soviet Union about detente. Some people in the West have, perhaps, come to take a more realistic view of the attitude that exists in that country.

The deterrent exists. It has so far succeeded, I am glad to say, in preventing a war, at any rate on this side of the globe. Recent events cause us to take an even more realistic view of the care we have to show in protecting the nation's security.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount of any fees paid by the Government to private, direct-grant and grant-aided schools in the United Kingdom on behalf of British Service men, for each school.

No, Sir. A Service man who places his child in a boarding school to ensure continuity of education may claim a boarding school allowance, but it remains his own responsibility to pay the fee to the school he has selected. In certain circumstances, he may arrange for a sum due to him to be remitted direct to a school by the Service paymaster, but information as to the amounts or schools covered by any such payments is not readily available.

Would it not be more appropriate for the Ministry to arrange for public money to be used to provide much-needed additional boarding places at State schools instead of using public money to continue further to subsidise the élite private sector?

The scheme under which this money is available has been running for many years. It is absolutely in the interests of those who are eligible to take part in it. I am sure it is right that the scheme should be continued.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the scheme operated by the Foreign Office which is in many ways superior to the scheme operated by the Ministry of Defence? Why should the children of diplomats be treated in a superior fashion to the children of soldiers?

I shall look into that matter. The boarding school allowances have been increased from September last year. Inequality of treatment relating to this and other matters is looked at all the time.

Is it not the fact that under the new Education Bill, £60 million will be given to private schools? Is it not, therefore, more necessary than ever that we know what other moneys are going to private schools? Why will the Minister not let us know? Figures given recently in the press are as high as hundreds of millions of pounds. We have a right to know how much public money is going to private education, even under the heading of defence.

The amount of money involved in these matters is known. If the hon. Gentleman follows Hansard, he will see that I answered a question on this matter tabled by one of his hon. Friends on 26 July last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to site any new generation nuclear missiles within 30 miles of Swindon.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what the current position is regarding the location of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

We are discussing with the Government of the United States the locations of the 160 ground launched cruise missiles to be based in this country. At present, however, consideration of potential sites is at an early stage and it would be premature to speculate on the possibilities.

Can I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to agree to the siting of any nuclear weapons at either Greenham Common or Fairford, which are within 30 miles of my constituency? Does he realise that it is a misguided and potentially catastrophic policy to have nuclear weapons in this country at all?

I fully appreciate the views of the hon. Gentleman. Frankly, at this stage, it would be wrong for me to give any undertaking about any particular site. We are at too early a stage. I must add, however, that this decision, taken not only by this Government, but by the whole NATO Alliance, was taken in the interests of peace and in the interests of the defence of freedom and democracy.

The siting of these weapons in no way affects the vulnerability or otherwise of a particular place. It is a mistake for anyone to think that the siting of a weapon in a particular place in the United Kingdom, or any other country in NATO, makes it more or less vulnerable. We are all vulnerable in the horrifying event of a holocaust.

How soon after a decision is made will the missiles be on station?

The missiles will be on station between 1982–83 and 1986.

As the right hon. Gentleman has said that the control of the use of these weapons will be the same as under previous Governments, will he confirm that this means that they can be used only with the agreement of both Governments?

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) before Christmas.

Will my right hon. Friend explore with the United States Government the possibility of ensuring that the mobile launchers of these missiles remain relatively as lightweight as possible so that they are as mobile as possible and therefore not confined to a handful of bases which would increase the interest of a potential aggressor in a pre-emptive strike?

I have already said that the question of basing is being considered by the United States Government in conjunction with ourselves. There is no question about mobility. I am afraid that I could not give, off the cuff, the actual weight of this vehicle. Obviously, it is a pretty hefty thing. But mobile it is. I cannot say more about the bases at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his intentions regarding the Trident, its approximate cost and date of construction.

We are still examining the options for replacing the current Polaris force when it reaches the end of its useful life in the 1990s.

I do not consider that a very adequate answer. However, if the British Government proceed with Trident, does this not destroy our flexibility in future nuclear negotiations? Does it not damage the prospects regarding SALT, on which our future depends?

I am bound to say that I think that SALT is pretty damaged as things stand today. That has to be recognised. Of course, there are considerations of this kind, whichever option is chosen. A number of articles about the Trident system are pure speculation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, no decision has yet been reached.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to indicating in the forthcoming defence White Paper the total cost of the Trident system, plus five nuclear submarines, over the life of the assets, so that we know how much it would cost the nation, both in capital terms and—particularly in relation to my constituency—in terms of the number of men who might be employed and the wages paid to them over the life of the system?

No, but of course cost is highly relevant in our consideration of any possible system. Estimating costs is therefore an important part in the consideration of options that are in hand.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were examining options and he has told us previously that he expects a decision to be made this year. As he will appreciate, many complicated issues are at stake. Will he consider making available to the House a great deal more information than has normally been made available? As he knows, it is often easier to learn about our defence policy in Washington than in the House. Notwithstanding security considerations, we would greatly benefit from an informed debate.

I am sensitive to requests for the widest possible amount of information, but it is a mistake to imply that all that one learns in Washington about defence or anything else is necessarily a contribution to truth or knowledge. That is no criticism, but it is so. Because the matter is so complicated and the material is so sensitive in relation to national security it is necessary for any Government to treat the issue with the utmost care. As I have said before, it is my desire at the appropriate stage, and perhaps at several stages, to make available to the House as much information as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current state of Great Britain's defences.

In the face of the growing military challenge from the Soviet Union, NATO has recognised the need to strengthen Alliance defences. The Government fully support these measures, and we are taking positive steps to improve the United Kingdom's contribution to the Alliance.

When will we have enough forces and weapons to give support to the proposed rapid deployment force suggested by President Carter?

We are considering that matter with the United States, and acutely so in light of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That is why the Foreign Secretary has gone on a tour of five countries which are affected by the invasion. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said yesterday, Ministers are considering the matter both in the North Atlantic Council today and in the European Community. We have the matter actively under review with our allies.

Can the Secretary of State be satisfied in light of the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy on the continuing possible leakage of crucial information from Urenco at Almelo? In light of the Government's own implied criticism of the Dutch Government, what do they propose to do about it?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. He is probably right in the sense that no Secretary of State for Defence, and certainly not this one, can be complacent about such a matter. It is serious, but there is nothing specific that I can say to the hon. Gentleman about it today.

In view of the important external threats that have been mentioned, can the Minister say what was the point of the Army training forces at Camberley to combat non-existent insurgency in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to apologise to the Scottish people for the fact that they were singled out by the English establishment for such derogatory treatment?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman ought not to look to the BBC for an apology, if that is what he wants. Neither this Government nor any other have responsibility for what is put out in a programme or for the views expressed in that programme. The fact that consideration is given to the support of the civil power by the military ought to be well understood by the House in view of events in Northern Ireland.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that civil defence is part of Britain's total defence? Does he also agree that the subject has been seriously neglected for more than 10 years, and will he, therefore, consult the Home Secretary about conducting an urgent review of civil defence arrangements?

As my hon. Friend will recognise, that matter is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The reduction in the effort devoted to civil defence a couple of decades ago flowed from the tripwire strategy. It was thought to be unnecessary to have any civil defence. That is why it has been at a minimal level. I know that my right hon. Friend is giving some consideration to that important matter, but I do not have responsibility for it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions were reached at the recent conference of Ministers within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

I made a statement to the House on 13 December about the decisions reached at the special meeting of the NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers on the previous day.

At their meetings on 10 and 11 December, NATO Defence Ministers had reiterated their concern at the sustained growth in the military capabilities of the Warsaw Pact. They concluded that this build-up, coupled with the Soviet Union's efforts to expand its influence worldwide, presented a growing challenge to the security of the West and they affirmed their determination to maintain the deterrent capability of the Alliance. I stressed that Britain would play its full part in strengthening NATO's collective defence.

The texts of the final communiqués of all these meetings have been placed in the Library.

I am grateful for that statement. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I support the statement that he made earlier about the safety of cruise missiles. What progress is being made in NATO on the urgent need to standardise our most effective equipment in the Western world?

We are making the most rapid progress that we can, though it is too slow for me. There is clearly a need for interoperability of weapons and when a need has been identified and there is the prospect of bringing a new weapon into use, we begin by discussing with our allies whether we can share the development of a project. It is a lengthy process and it is not going quickly enough, but we are giving it every possible support.

What positive steps could NATO undertake in light of the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, bearing in mind the present level of NATO defence forces? What could we do to defend our interests in that area of the world, which are so vital to the future progress and prosperity of Europe?

I have no doubt that those matters are being discussed at this moment by Ministers at the North Atlantic Council. There is no question but that events in South-West Asia during the recess give sharp expression to the threats represented to the West through trade routes and interruptions of our essential needs. We in Britain are acutely conscious, because of our history and geography, of the needs that will have to be met in that part of the world. We are in constant touch with our NATO allies and that is the reason why the Foreign Secretary has made a personal visit to those countries, as part of the assessment that we are making.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the installation of cruise missiles in this country could lead to a situation in which the Americans may decide to use those missiles to meet a Russion adventure, for example in Afghanistan, and that we could therefore be dragged willy nilly into a nuclear conflict? Can he explain how freedom and democracy are preserved when other fingers press nuclear buttons and draw people, whether they like it or not, into a radioactive cinder heap? Is that the preservation of freedom, democracy and choice?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is the purpose of those weapons to preserve peace and to deter. To that extent, they have succeeded, but we are now acutely aware of a fact that was not so clear before Christmas, namely that the threat of which we have spoken exists and is real and that if we lower our guard we may be threatened in a way that we would regret.

The point of those weapons and the modernisation of our theatre nuclear forces is to ensure that we have the capability to deter. Had we not taken that decision we could have been accused of not having enough retaliatory capability to put into the minds of potential aggressors that if they go too far they may have a return that they would find totally unacceptable. That is the point of the deterrent strategy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate cost to the United Kingdom taxpayer of the recent reinforcement of the Hong Kong garrison.

Last year the cost of the reinforcements was estimated at £27 million for a 12 month period, of which about £6 million would be borne by the United Kingdom. However, reinforcement levels have fluctuated, and I cannot yet give revised cost details as the matter is under further discussion with the Hong Kong Government.

Now that China has joined the free world and is being embraced with open arms by NATO, might it not be cheaper and more sensible to ask Chairman Hua to send a couple of platoons of the People's Army to defend the interests of the merchant bankers of Hong Kong?

The hon. Gentleman goes into flights of fantasy on this issue, as he has in the past. The purpose of the garrison is to be a demonstration of the Government's commitment to the integrity and security of Hong Kong. The reason for the reinforcements has been the number of illegal immigrants coming across the border. Although there were discussions with Hua Kuo-feng when he came to this country, the number of illegal immigrants still being attracted to free enterprise Hong Kong from Socialist China is causing difficulties for that area.

The Minister seemed to indicate that he believed that British forces could defend Hong Kong against a possible Chinese invasion. If he really believes this, he must be living in cloud-cuckoo-land. If he does not, surely he must accept that the £6 million that it is costing to reinforce the garrison—for what purpose I do not understand—would be better spent in going towards a reduction of some of the cuts being made in this country.

The hon. Gentleman may recall the position when he held the office which it is now my privilege to hold, and when the garrison was approximately the same size as it is now. There has been a small level of reinforcement. The reinforcements are there to give support to the police and to the authorities of Hong Kong against the pressure of illegal immigrants coming into Hong Kong. In these circumstances, I think it is entirely justified that we should respond to the request of the Hong Kong Government for reinforcements.

Does the Minister not agree that Labour Members fail to appreciate the respect which the British troops are accorded in Hong Kong by the residents of Hong Kong and by the Chinese themselves?

There is no question of an external threat to Hong Kong, in a military sense, which our garrison there would meet. Such a threat does not exist. But it is essential that we main- tain our garrison in Hong Kong to deal with the serious problem affecting the people of Hong Kong by the pressure of immigration.

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

On present plans I expect to meet NATO Defence Ministers at the Eurogroup and Defence Planning Committee meetings in May.

In view of the fact that the flashpoints for potential aggression now occur beyond NATO's frontier, in places such as Afghanistan, does my right hon. Friend accept the need for him and his colleagues in NATO to discuss the limitations which exist because NATO's boundaries end at the equator? Will he consider what possible discussions might take place to take this fact into account?

It is my view that the defence of freedom and democracy knows no boundaries. Whereas, of course, it is appropriate for alliances to have certain boundaries for structural and administrative purposes, the threat that exists is worldwide. It is the policy of the Government to give the most active encouragement to all our NATO allies to perceive the threat in worldwide terms. As I have already said in answer to previous questions, we are fulfilling that policy as best we can at the present time.

The right hon. Gentleman was suggesting in his earlier answer that he accepted without criticism the policy of common arms procurement with all his European colleagues. If that is so, what effect will that have on industries within Great Britain?

I was giving support and encouragement to the interoperability of weapon systems within the Alliance and to the need for collaboration between member countries of the Alliance over the procurement of weapons. With inflation at its present level, the cost of replacing systems goes up and up and there is an economic incentive to cause the Alliance to look more carefully at collaboration. That is what we are doing.

asked the Prime Minister when she will next meet Prime Ministers of North Atlantic Treaty Oragnisation countries.

I frequently see my colleagues, but there are no plans at present for a meeting of the North Atlantic Council at summit level.

Yesterday the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said that the North Atlantic Council would be meeting today but that only certain countries would be represented. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that this is not a self-appointed group, and that all member countries of NATO, including those nearer to the Afghanistan conflict, have the opportunity to take part?

As far as I am aware, they are all there and have the opportunity to take part. They are very important discussions but I cannot be absolutely precise on that question.

In view of the recent Soviet aggression in Afghanistan will my right hon. Friend consider whether this country should adopt further measures of rearmament, in spite of present economic difficulties?

I think that we are doing as much as we possibly can at the moment. We have undertaken to increase our expenditure by 3 per cent. over the outturn for this year. We must also give attention to the improvement of our economic position so that we may be able the better to defend our country in the future.

Would the Prime Minister care to explain to the workers of the Glynwed group in Falkirk, who have been told that they are to be made redundant this year, how a firm which makes a substantial contribution to the Tory Partyfunds at election times is now having—

Order. We shall not come to open questions until we reach question Q5. The present question relates to NATO.

Will my right hon. Friend, in discussing with our NATO allies the future of the NATO Alliance, ensure that every encouragement is given to the Spanish Government, who have made clear that it is their intention to play a full part in the defence of the West? If an application to join NATO is made by that Government, what will be the attitude of the British Government? Will my right hon. Friend give us some indication?

Most of us would welcome it if Spain were to join NATO, because once again it would strengthen the defences of the free world. We are particularly anxious to have join us those countries which hitherto have had quite strong communist parties.

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Swindon.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that my constituents, oppressed by accelerating prices, by swingeing increases in mortgage rates and rents, are now extremely concerned that they may be laid off because of her capricious negligence of the steel dispute? Will she come to Swindon and try to explain her policy and, better still, apologise to my constituents for the way in which she grossly misled them during the election about her policies and the results of those policies?

With regard to our policy on steel, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the taxpayer has been very generous to the steel industry in fully and properly equipping it so that it can increase productivity in the future. The question we have to ask is whether many people whose incomes are lower than the average income in the steel industry, should rightly be asked further to subsidise the steel industry in the future over and above the £450 million budget that we have decided to make available to the British Steel Corporation next year.

rose—

Order. I treated that question as a constituency question, as I have done on all occasions when hon. Members have invited the Prime Minister to visit their constituencies. We shall reach the open question soon, when the other issues can come up.

asked the Prime Minister when she next plans to make an official visit to Rome.

I have no immediate plans to do so. I visited Rome on 4 and 5 October and the Italian Prime Minister has accepted my invitation to visit London on 29 and 30 January.

When the right hon. Lady next goes to Rome will it not be for the next meeting of the Council of the Heads of Government? Will she confirm to the House that she will press for the £1,000 million—no more and no less? Will she tell the House whether that figure includes projects such as loans for atomic power stations and can she say why the Government have agreed to increase the Euratom loan to £1,000 million when the Scrutiny Committee decided that that matter should be debated by this House before it was agreed?

Is she aware that this was agreed in the Council of Ministers on 20 December? Does that not break the undertaking given to this House?

I think that the next meeting of the European Council will probably be in Brussels in March, unless it is advanced specifically to deal with the budget problem. In the light of that the Italian Prime Minister, as President of the Council, is coming to London shortly. Of course, we shall press for vastly increased receipts for this country from the European budget so that we may substantially reduce our net contribution. We have given up no negotiating position.

When my right hon. Friend next goes to Rome will she remind all the countries of the EEC that the principal argument for the creation, and also for the extension, of the EEC was that it would give political solidarity in times of crisis? If the French Government fail to give wholehearted support to our economic measures against Soviet Russia in the near future does she not think that the British people may draw a very important conclusion about the whole of the EEC?

There is an EEC meeting today about what further measures should be taken in relation to our decision to stand by the United States and the forthright observations of President Carter about Afghanistan. That is at present being considered and I think that it would be unwise to pre-empt the result of the meeting.

The right hon. Lady used the words "vastly increased" in terms of Community expenditure in Britain in the context of the European budget. Will she make it absolutely plain that her objective remains as it was before the Dublin summit, namely, to get a broad balance between the contribution and the receipts of the United Kingdom, and that she has not abandoned that objective?

I am not abandoning that objective, but let me be perfectly honest with the right hon. Gentleman and say what I said before. That is still the objective. We go for a genuine compromise, but we have not really very much room for manoeuvre. On the issue of receipts, if the European Economic Community increased our receipts to three quarters of the European average—judged per head of population—we should be home and dry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that whether or not she has the wholehearted support of this House she has the wholehearted support of the people of this country in her demand that our contribution to the EEC budget should be reduced? Will she go to Rome, and future meetings of the EEC, in the knowledge that she has the support of the vast majority of the British people in demanding that we get justice within the EEC. Does she realise that she should not necessarily listen to members of the Opposition who, when all is said and done, actually [Interruption]—

Order. I had hoped that we would reach question Q5 because that is an open one.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that it was the Opposition who renegotiated our entry terms into the EEC? My right hon. Friend is the only person in the House who has taken a strong stand.

As my hon. Friend says, it was the policies of the Opposition which landed us with the contribution that we are now paying. I believe that I made it perfectly clear in Dublin that we were not to be satisfied with a small sum which was grossly inadequate in view of our equitable and justified claim.

The right hon. Lady has left the House in considerable doubt as to whether she is standing by what she originally said. Will she tell us, and give the specific reference, when she referred to a so-called "genuine compromise"—to use her words today—just prior to the Dublin meeting?

The phrase was used at Dublin and, I believe, either in my statement or in answer to questions in this House after I had returned from Dublin.

asked the Prime Minister, following the discussions in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation during December, what response she will make to Mr. Brezhnev's proposals.

In December NATO Ministers agreed on an important package of arms control proposals. These initiatives were under discussion well before Mr. Brezhnev's speech on 6 October, but they take account of Soviet ideas. Before the December meeting I had already replied to the letter which I received from Mr. Brezhnev following his speech. In my reply, I emphasised our determination both to rectify the growing imbalance in long range theatre nuclear capabilities and to make full use of the opportunities for arms control.

While we condemn events in Afghanistan—as many of us condemned events in Vietnam and Suez—should not any offer of arms reduction at least be put to the test rather than be rebuffed by the installation of cruise and Pershing missiles on our soil? Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that it is in British interests and to our advantage that future arms reduction negotiations should succeed?

What has happened in Afghanistan—something which has been roundly condemned by the whole of the Western world and the non-aligned nations—has fully justified the stand that this Government have taken on defence and our determination to ensure that we always negotiate from strength. Of course, we are always willing to negotiate genuine arms control but the reply to Mr. Brezhnev, which was the result of the NATO meeting, was put forward on 18 December and was turned down by the Soviet authorities.

Will my right hon. Friend send a message to President Tito from the whole of this House wishing him a prompt recovery from his troubles? Will she make plain to Mr. Brezhnev that the British Government will do everything in their power to support Yugoslav resistance to any intervention calculated to threaten Yugoslavia's autonomy?

I am only too happy to send greetings to President Tito and to wish him a speedy recovery from his recent operation and to hope, and say, that we shall do everything we can to see that the independence of Yugoslavia is maintained.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity to praise the amateur Olympic athletes who train in this country, often under the most horrific conditions? Does she not agree that the amateur status of the Olympic Games has been brought into disrepute in recent years by full-time professionals from the Eastern bloc? Is it not time that the International Olympic Committee revised the terms of reference of the Olympic Games?

It would be a rash person who became involved in the amateur/professional status of athletes. I am sure that my hon. Friend's words will not have gone unheard by the International Olympic Committee.

I return to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to an earlier question about the steel strike. How long does she propose to continue to recite to the country the figures which have been given by the British Steel Corporation and to refuse to have a single meeting with the leaders of the trade unions to hear their side of the case? How much does she think that is costing the country and British industry each year? How long must we tolerate her obstinacy on this subject?

Most of the figures come from the report from the sector working party on iron and steel which was published yesterday and which was signed by the trade union leaders. There are many tables in that document which show the comparative productivity of our steel industry as against other steel industries. The document was signed by both employers and unions.

If the right hon. Lady is so confident that those figures are correct—she quoted other figures when she appeared on television a few days ago—why is she so afraid to meet the trade union leaders?

I am not afraid to meet either the leaders of the trade union movement or leaders of any movement, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. If he cannot ask a better question than that, I do not know why he bothers.

In that case, will the Prime Minister announce to the House and to the country when she will meet the trade unions to hear the very figures of which she and her Secretary of State have so far refused to take any account?

Unlike the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), I assume that the trade union leaders are able to speak for themselves.