asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects his Department will complete its evaluation of the new Vickers Valiant main battle tank.

At the request of the company, and at its expense, proving trials of the Vickers Valiant main battle tank are being carried out at Ministry of Defence establishments. A further report is due to be given to the company shortly.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but why is the Ministry of Defence carrying out these trials? Is the Department satisfied, or not, with the performance of Valiant?

The trials are intended to assist Vickers with its overseas sales efforts. Details of the results of the trials are of course confidential to the Ministry of Defence and the company, but I am sure that Valiant will admirably fulfil requirements in many parts of the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the proportion of defence expenditure in the last full year that was attributable to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitments.

More that 90 per cent. of our defence expenditure in 1981–82 was related to NATO commitments.

I appreciate that those are very substantial figures, but is it not clear that expenditure on NATO is a vital part of our defence and that those who advocate withdrawal are gambling on the fact that their freedoms, including those of protest, will be guaranteed by others than ourselves?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. More than 90 per cent. of total expenditure by NATO is made by our allies. Therefore, without NATO our defence would be very small.

While I agree that membership of NATO remains vital for Britain and, indeed, for the free world generally, will the Secretary of State agree that there is or ought to be a change in the whole attitude towards strategy and policy in NATO? Will he further agree that this change is visible and was visible in the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, and can be seen in Germany, Greenland and throughout Europe? It is that we must all work for a nuclear free NATO in Europe and ensure that cruise and Pershing are not deployed inside Europe?

No, I will not agree. Whatever political views their Governments may hold, all the countries in NATO agree that its present policies are the best that can be devised for our common defence and the maintenance of freedom. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the nuclear strategy, but it was NATO, not the Soviet Union, that proposed the zero option.

Is NATO prepared to accept the "No first use of nuclear weapons" concept put forward by the Soviet Union? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that NATO's headquarters will not be moved to the United Kingdom, because such a move would imply the express acceptance of a nuclear war in Europe, which is unacceptable to our people?

Rubbish.

No one has ever suggested moving NATO's headquarters to the United Kingdom. I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misread or misunderstood piece in The Guardian. The article in The Guardian to which he referred suggested that the United States European command headquarters might move to the United Kingdom, but that is not contemplated.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's strong advocacy of the renunciation of certain nuclear weapons means that the West's ability to obtain multilateral nuclear disarmament will be considerably hindered?

Nonsense.

My hon. Friend is clearly correct. If the Soviet Union feels that it can achieve all its objectives through peace movements in the West it will see no reason to come forward with proposals to reduce its nuclear weapons. The other day I saw with great interest the Labour Party's political broadcast. It was one of the most disgraceful broadcasts that I have ever seen. It hardly mentioned that the Soviet Union has deployed nearly 1,000 warheads, which threaten us. The whole broadcast was devoted to the West's defences.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I inadvertently talked about a nuclear free NATO in Europe. Of course, that does not make sense. I meant a nuclear free Europe, and of course that applies both to NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

It is nice for me to hear that other people, too, make mistakes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if competitive tendering remains the normal method for his Department for securing repair work contracts for merchant ships taken up from trade for the Falklands emergency.

Competitive tendering has not been the method employed by the Ministry of Defence for placing repair contracts for merchant ships taken up from trade for the Falklands emergency. The need to return ships quickly to their owners in order to minimise charter fees has precluded the use of competitive tendering procedures.

Is my hon. Friend aware that British Shipbuilders is using the profits from its Ministry of Defence contracts to subsidise its ship repairing activities and is thus unfairly undercutting free enterprise ship repairers, such as Jefferies Avonmouth Limited, in my constituency? What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that the private sector receives fairer treatment from the Ministry of Defence?

How British Shipbuilders uses its profits from Ministry of Defence contracts or others is primarily a matter for it, or for the Department of Industry. Of the 25 contracts that have been placed for merchant ships that have returned from the Falkland Islands, eight have gone to British Shipbuilders' yards and 17 to the private sector.

Does the Minister appreciate that there is great anger on the Tyne about the way in which the Government have placed contracts with private yards, for the repair of merchant vessels at the expense—according to the Minister's figures, in the ratio of 3:1—of the public yards?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that contracts have been allocated according to the best available capacity and in accordance with what we felt would be the best response to our needs. The hon. Gentleman has advocated repairs being carried out in certain yards on the Tyne and I think that he would accept that we have been able to accede to his request in some cases.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list those merchant ships currently chartered or requisitioned by his Department for use in connection with the Falklands operations.

Twenty-seven ships are currently taken up for use in support of our forces on or around the Falkland Islands and four are being prepared for return to their owners. I shall publish the full list in the Official Report.

I believe that the "Uganda" was recently chartered or requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence. Is it the only merchant ship suitable for the purpose?

We had a requirement, which we put to the shipping industry. "Uganda" seemed best to fulfil the requirement in terms of price and availability, and we have signed a contract for that ship.

Will my hon. Friend turn his attention today to a project being discussed by his officials—the chartering of a merchant vessel in which to quarter Service personnel—and will he ensure that the fitting out of the vessel is undertaken in the United Kingdom and not, as happened recently with a similar charter, abroad?

We would like to give the work to British industry as long as it can meet the requirement and the delivery date. That is essential.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the forces sent to the Falklands were killed in action; and how this compares with previous military engagements.

Slightly under 1 per cent. of the forces sent to the Falklands were killed in action. It is not possible to make valid comparisons with previous military engagements.

How does the Ministry of Defence justify paying the widows of some privates less than it is paying the widows of others, according to where and when their husbands were killed, and that the Ministry pays nothing to the widows of Service men who were killed in the First or Second World War? Will the Minister re-examine the whole question of war widows' pensions?

The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there have been substantial improvements over the years. As he well knows, the problem with retrospection is simply that of cost.

Would there not have been considerably greater loss of life had the decision not been taken to send a task force of sufficient strength to deal with the problem? Is it not a fact that the efforts of civilians and members of the forces to equip the force and get it under way in fewer than four days represent a remarkable achievement?

Yes, Sir. Of course, the first part of my hon. Friend's question is hypothetical. However, I think that all commanders were mindful of the need to keep casualties to the absolute minimum.

Will the Minister say how many of our forces were killed by Exocets and whether the components in them were supplied by British companies?

The answer to both questions is "No, Sir."

Is it not a matter of shame, which echoes round the world, that the Government of Argentina have failed to accept responsibility for their dead and have made no arrangements for their burial? Has my hon. Friend news of any developments on that score?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. We are now making plans to ensure that the temporary interment of many of the Argentine dead can be dealt with on a more permanent basis. Unfortunately, we must take on that responsibility. I am making arrangements so that the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Brazilian embassy are consulted about the arrangements that we have in mind.

The Minister may be unable to tell the House how many firms supply parts for Exocet, but he should be able to tell us how many casualties there were as a result of Exocet. Will he be kind enough to do so?

Answer the question.

This is a disgrace.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest available estimate of the final cost of Trident.

The estimate is £7,500 million, less several hundred million pounds as a result of the decision to process the missiles in the United States.

With what moral authority can Britain argue that developing countries should not have their own independent nuclear weapons when we persist with Trident? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be in the interest of limiting proliferation to abandon Trident? Given the escalating cost of that ruinously expensive project, will he now agree that we may have another debate on this issue?

The subject has been debated in the House frequently, and probably more than almost any other military subject. No one has yet told me of a developing country with aspirations to acquire its own nuclear weapons that would follow our example if we were unilaterally to give up our nuclear weapons. The cost of Trident must be seen in perspective. Its through-life cost will be the equivalent of 12p per week per person in this country.

Would the Minister personally be willing to accept the moral responsibility of pressing the button that would unleash these nuclear weapons and inevitably incinerate untold millions of innocent people?

I do not expect to have to be in the position to take that decision, but it is essential for the Russians to believe that we might be prepared to press the button in the event of Soviet aggression. That is the best way of preventing war, which is our objective.

What percentage of the cost of Trident will be spent in this country? Will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department makes every effort possible to ensure that the maximum amount of expenditure takes place in this country and not the United States of America?

I can give my hon. Friend that last assurance. Our latest estimate is that 55 per cent. of the cost of Trident will be spent in this country. In addition, British firms will be entitled to compete for the subcontracting work on the Trident missile. Four hundred British firms have been briefed and sent the necessary information by the Americans.

Will the Minister stop trying to play down the cost of Trident, to the extent that he has in the past, by costing it in terms of chocolate bars? Will he admit that the cost of this immensely destructive weapon will amount to at least 20 per cent. of the defence equipment budget in its peak years? In so doing, it will prevent the replacement of ageing ships and aircraft which this Government will bequeath to the next.

It is an immensely destructive weapon. That is the whole point of it. If the Soviet Union knows that if it commits acts of aggression it will be hit by a Trident missile, it is unlikely to commit acts of aggression. I hope that the hon. Lady will one day manage to grasp that point. Her figure for the percentage of the defence equipment budget is not correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to rectify the shortage of supersonic fighter aircraft available for the air defence of the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what total expenditure has been committed by Her Majesty's Government since May 1979 on new naval vessels which they have ordered; and how many vessels this represents.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is yet in a position to place new orders for naval vessels on the Vosper Thornycroft yards of British Shipbuilders.

I am today publishing a White Paper on the Falklands campaign and, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall shortly be making a statement on this and on new equipment orders.

rose—

If the hon. Members concerned care to wait until the statement has been made, I shall see that they are called then to put supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government have any plans to increase their military commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

In accordance with NATO's target, we are committed to a real increase of 3 per cent. in defence spending until 1985–86. This will enable us to continue to modernise our forces and maintain our defence capability.

Bearing in mind that NATO is a defence alliance, is my right hon. Friend aware of the rumours that the Soviet Union is spending at least £6 million on organisations such as the CND which seek to undermine NATO? Will he seek to improve the quality and resources of the NATO information services?

Where is the evidence?

The Soviet Union does not seek to hide the fact that it is encouraging and financing peace movements in the West. It acknowledges that the peace movements are working in favour of its policies. The NATO information service needs more resources, but it is for the member Governments of NATO to be in the vanguard in explaining that NATO is a successful peace movement.

Does the Secretary of State agree that defence expenditure next year, taking into account the 3 per cent. NATO commitment that he has mentioned, the cost of the Falklands operation, and excluding any cost that may appear in the statement he will make today, will be at least 5½ per cent. of the country's GNP, which is returning to the days of east of Suez? Does he agree that that is a completely intolerable and unacceptable burden on public expenditure?

That is a rare intervention by the right hon. Gentleman. He complains normally that we are not doing enough. He wants either to keep all the dockyards open or to have more ships. Most of his criticisms are that we are doing insufficient. He criticises us now for spending too much. I acknowledge that his party's programme would cut defence spending by about £3 billion per annum and cause chaos for employment throughout the country.

In view of the crucial importance of NATO to the survival of our freedom, including the freedom to write articles in the press, and in the light of the extremely interesting, well-written and illuminating article by the Leader of the Opposition in The Times today, will my right hon. Friend seek to have the Labour Party's attitude towards NATO clarified?

May I try to clarify the Labour Party's attitude towards NATO, as it is a little obscure to most of us?

Order. I think that that would be a misuse of Question Time.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that remark. It is of course impossible to clarify the Labour Party's attitude on the point during Question Time.

In view of the Secretary of State's previous answers about NATO and reports in the press about United States headquarters, why did the Government describe as fundamentally untrue—in the language of Watergate—a report which later turned out to be fundamentally true? Is his Department continuing the policy of misinformation that it conducted during the Falklands campaign?

I am not responsible for articles that appear in The Guardian. The main thrust of The Guardian article, as I read it, was that it was the intention of the United States Government to remove its command headquarters from Stuttgart to this country. That is not the United States Government's intention. The United States Government are arranging to have a stand-by headquarters organised in the United Kingdom to perform certain functions in the event of war. That is entirely different. I should have thought that those were prudent and sensible precautions for them to take.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Defence said clearly that in his opinion the British peace movement and the CND were part-funded by the Soviet Union. As many Labour Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, are members of CND and active participants—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to continue.

Many Labour Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, are active participants in the British peace movement. The Secretary of State has implied that we are in receipt of money from the Soviet Union in order to put our point of view. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will rule that such issues, expressed in the way that the Secretary of State did, are completely out of order and should be withdrawn. I hope that both he and the Prime Minister will make a categoric statement to the House to the effect that in no way do they imply that Labour Members are receiving money from the Soviet Union—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has brought forward a political argument between the two sides of the House, on which I cannot rule.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his discussions with industry on the experimental programme for the agile combat aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will raise in his discussions with industry on the agile combat aircraft the possible total manufacture and the employment implications.

A programme definition study is nearing completion, and negotiations are in progress with a view to placing an early contract with British Aerospace for the demonstration in an aircraft of the technology applicable to a variety of possible future advanced agility aircraft. The agile combat aircraft is a private venture project. We believe the experimental aircraft programme will help clarify the prospects for this and other options.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of the experimental aircraft programme both in terms of its strategic value and the industrial base support that it represents? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the financial arrangements that have been made with the consortium are the same, or confirm those that have been made privately to the industry by the Secretary of State?

I reassure my hon. Friend that at the Ministry we are fully seized of the importance of the project. I did not fully understand the second part of my hon. Friend's question. I am not inviting you, Mr. Speaker to ask him to repeat it, but perhaps he might care to communicate with me separately.

Will the Minister say that should the ACA project go ahead, a large part of the production will be within the United Kingdom and not in America or some part of Europe?

Should the production, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, go ahead, I imagine that the production will be with the British Aerospace industry. It will enable that industry to make a major contribution to the British defence effort, which is something that the hon. Gentleman is not always noted for supporting.

What funds are being made available by my hon. Friend's Department to Rolls-Royce for further development of the RB199 engine, which is required not just for the ACA but for the air defence variant of the Tornado? Does my hon. Friend feel that the development of that engine will be completed in time for the ACA to take maximum advantage of market opportunities?

Rolls-Royce is now working on the Mk 104 version of the RB 199 engine, which is intended for the ADV version of the Tornado. That variant will certainly be available within the time scale in question.

Does the Minister think that it would be helpful if the new fighter aircraft programme could go ahead on a bipartisan basis, and that it would contribute to that bipartisan policy if the Labour Party gave a commitment not to cancel it?

I am sure that such a commitment would always be welcome, but I hope that the possibility that the hon. Gentleman has in mind does not arise.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman of one thing. He will not be in office when the final decisions are taken. In regard to what the hon. Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), may I say that we believe in a realistic defence policy and not one that is based on Massada without the benefits of a diaspora. Will the hon. Gentleman say what time scale he envisages for this venture?

If we can come back from the top of various mountains in the Sinai desert, the advance experimental aircraft programme is envisaged to take between three and five years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for organisation and control of the Royal Navy dockyards involved in the reduction in the number of yards.

These matters continue to be the subject of internal study. We are at present in consultation with the trade unions on the initial results of this work. Meanwhile, our own consideration of certain aspects of the organisation for the management of ship repair and maintenance matters is continuing.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one consideration is the removal of "Dreadnought" from Chatham to Rosyth? Will he give an assurance about safety in relation to that type of decision and also an assurance that the decision is based on safety, not on political considerations?

I can give the hon. Gentleman a complete assurance that the future of "Dreadnought" and the decision that we take about her will be based entirely on grounds of safety.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of the remaining dockyards and fleet maintenance bases, it is essential that they have sufficient resources in terms of locally autonomous management and manpower to provide an efficient and cost-effective backup to the Fleet?

Yes. I agree with that. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that we are issuing a consultative paper today, which should now be in the hands of the trade unions. This sets out our ideas about the future of Portsmouth dockyard. It is now clear that we snail need additional support at Portsmouth. We are therefore issuing this consultative document to the unions.

As it was the obvious intention of the Secretary of State to concentrate full repair facilities overall for surface and underwater vessels at Devonport, will he take account of the fact that "Swiftsure" has been at Devonport for three years and is not yet completed? In view of the necessity for keeping SSNs operational, will he reconsider the situation at Chatham, which can provide those facilities?

As my hon. Friend knows, I accept that Chatham has undertaken a valuable task over the years. I am afraid that we cannot give any reprieve to Chatham. It must close in accordance with our previously announced plan. "Swiftsure" is the first of a new class of submarine. The refitting is proceeding in parallel with the development of a new refitting complex at Devonport. One has to consider the effects of the 1981 civil servants' dispute. The management at Devonport has a learning curve, just as Chatham had a learning curve when it started to undertake that work.

As the Ministry of Defence was saying in 1981 that it would keep Chatham open, what new factor has occurred between 1981 and 1982 that means it has now to close?

There has been a substantial change in the manner in which we are planning to look after and support naval ships. We have ended the practice of mid-life modernisation. Devonport had already been expanded to deal with further SSN refits. The pattern of working at all the dockyards has changed. There is nothing to be gained from continuing to have more support for naval vessels than is necessary for the front line.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the installation of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

Preparations are on schedule for the deployment of cruise missiles at Greenham Common by the end of 1983.

Will the Minister accept that the courageous women—[Interruption]—whos are blockading Greenham Common have my support and the support of millions of people throughout the United Kingdom? Does he not understand that cruise missiles will endanger these islands because there is no Government right of veto over their use? Is he aware that they represent an escalation of the nuclear arms race? Is he further aware that while he wrings his hands and talks about multilateral disarmament, he is participating in the ever-growing arms race? When will he listen to the voice of the people, which says "No" to cruise missiles?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, by declaring his support for these women, proposes to help or to hinder them. I do not question the sincerity of the women, but I do question their judgment and their knowledge. What they are doing is more likely to hinder the prospects of peace than to help them, and also to hinder the prospects of multilateral disarmament rather than to help them. In regard to escalation, the Soviet Union already has installed 333 SS20s, intermediate land-based missiles, which are capable of reaching the whole of Europe. On the Western side, we have none of an equivalent kind.

Will the Government take every opportunity to make clear to our friends in the United States and elsewhere that the consequences of an occasional well-organised and well-publicised demonstration by a few thousand people is greatly outweighed by the continuing support of the majority of men and women in this country for collective security as the best guarantee of continuing peace?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is clear, I believe, to our friends in the United States. It is important that we should continue to explain the facts to the people of this country in view of the issuing of inaccurate information by the CND, which I can, if necessary, document. The United States agrees with us in putting high priority on the zero option, which, if adopted by the Soviet Union, would make unnecessary the adoption of any cruise missiles and would mean the abolition of the SS20s.

Does not the Minister realise that he does not help his case when he is patronising and condescending—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—about what happened at Greenham Common and the faith and dedication of the women who went there? The women believe that they are helping their families and their children. The Government have never sought the consent of the people for the installation of cruise missiles. It is time that the Government took public opinion into account.

The cruise missile was debated in this House in January 1980. There have been opportunities to debate it frequently since that time. I was not questioning the good faith of the women who protested at Greenham Common. I was simply questioning their judgment and the likely effects of their action.

Can my hon. Friend confirm to my constituents in Molesworth that if the Soviet Union were prepared to reduce the SS20s it already has in place there might be no imperative to introduce cruise and Pershing missiles under the present plan? In those circumstances, are not the silly, sincere and misguided women at Greenham Common and Molesworth damaging a genuine chance of multilateral disarmament?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the consequences if the zero option were to be adopted by the Soviet Union. I hope that the Soviet Union will adopt it. I commend to the Opposition the brief words of Mr. Andropov, the new leader of the Soviet Union:

"Let no one expect of us unilateral disarmament. We are not naive people. We do not demand unilateral disarmament by the West."

The Minister of State was quoted in The Guardian today as having said—[Interruption.] I am quoting the Minister of State, who was quoted by The Guardian.

What about Peter Jenkins' article in The Guardian about the Trots in the CND?

As I was saying, the Minister of State was quoted in The Guardian as saying that the women of Greenham Common were undermining Britain's ability to negotiate with the Soviet Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question".] The question that I am asking is, when was the last occasion on which the United Kingdom was in the negotiating chamber with the Soviet Union, talking about nuclear weapons?

We are currently in the negotiating chamber talking to the Soviet Union about nuclear weapons.

Where?

In the committee on disarmament in Geneva.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what reciprocal procedures exist between the United Kingdom and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member States and countries bordering the organisation by which the accidental release of a nuclear weapon is notified.

The United States, the United Kingdom and France all have bilateral agreements with the Soviet Union concerning reciprocal procedures for the notification of accidental release of a nuclear weapon. I shall arrange to have these listed with their full titles in the Official Report.

As the Soviet agency Novosti has said that if a Euro-missile is accidentally fired at the Soviet Union after 1983 it will take instantaneous retaliatory action, what would happen if an SS20 were accidentally fired, today or at any time up to the point of the arrival of those Euro-missiles?

The Novosti press, assiduously followed by the Labour Party, in its party political broadcast—[Interruption]—was wrong in showing that the time required for a missile fired from Western Europe to reach the Soviet Union would be six minutes. With regard to the accidental firing of a missile, elaborate procedures have been agreed between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, between the Soviet Union and the United States, and between the Soviet Union and France, involving the use of the hot line.

Does not the possibility of the accidental release of such a missile underline the point that the women of Greenham Common are seeking to make, that it is undesirable for us to have more of these missiles deployed here as that must increase the danger of such a possibility? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that there are real dangers here, which these women are fighting against, and will he not smear them, either as naive or Soviet puppets?

I am not trying to smear the women who demonstrated. I simply point out what would be the likely consequences of their action. With regard to accidental release, I have nothing to add to what was said. There are very effective arrangements between the countries concerned, which are regularly tested.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his most recent meetings with other Defence Ministers in Brussels.

Along with other NATO Defence Ministers I attended meetings of the Defence Planning Committee, the Nuclear Planning Group and the Eurogroup in Brussels between 29 November and 2 December. We had valuable discussions on a wide range of subjects, and the full text of the three communiqués has been placed in the Library.

What did the Minister say regarding the Soviet offer a fortnight earlier to halve its medium-range missiles? Will the Secretary of State press for negotiations on this rather than support Washington's rejection, or does he wish to encourage further events at Greenham Common?

As the Soviet Union has over 900 independently targeted warheads installed, and NATO has no equivalent weapons in place, an offer by the Soviet Union to remove half still threatens us in the West. The offer that it has made cannot be acceptable to NATO. However, this may be a move in the right direction and if we can get the Soviet Union to understand our fears about its deployments, we shall be making progress. That is what we are trying to achieve by the zero option, which would mean no deployments at all.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one this afternoon with representatives from Scotland about the future of the steel industry. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when Mr. Basnett says that the unions will threaten insurrection and civil disobedience if the Government do not do what the TUC wants, he does not speak for trade union members as a whole? [Hon. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Does my right hon. Friend agree that most trade unionists support parliamentary democracy and would not agree to direct action as asked for by Mr. Basnett? If the TUC is to play a proper role, should it not seek to reflect more closely the views of its members?

I join my hon. Friend in deploring the remarks of Mr. Basnett. I agree with my hon. Friend that the vast majority of trade unionists, indeed all, are fully in favour of the democratic process and wish for a greater measure of democracy to be applied to the trade unions. When it comes to expressing—

What about the chairman of the Tory Party?

—their parliamentary views they vote as citizens, not as trade unionists.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady must know, with regard to the previous question, that there is no better democrat than David Basnett. It might have been simpler had she replied in those terms. I put to the right hon. Lady a question on a most serious matter. She sometimes claims to be a strong supporter of multilateral disarmament. Will she explain to us why, over the past few days in the discussions in the plenary session in New York, there have been 28 occasions on which Great Britain has either abstained or voted against resolutions that were proposing different forms of nuclear disarmament? In particular, why did Britain vote against the proposal for a nuclear weapons production freeze, proposed by Mexico and Sweden and supported by India?

That is the first time that I have heard a Leader of the Opposition say indirectly that insurrection is a weapon of democracy. It is not.

On the subject of Mr. David Basnett, may I tell the right hon. Lady that we will not have decent democrats in this country smeared by her sub-McCarthy methods? On the other matter, how does she expect anyone to believe her claim that she is strongly in favour of multilateral nuclear disarmament when she encourages the Government of her country to vote against every multilateral disarmament proposal?

I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will reject the weapons of insurrection and civil disobedience as weapons of democracy. Perhaps he will come clean on that. I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that to vote for a freeze when the potential aggressor has great superiority is to weaken the defences of this country. That we are not prepared to do.

Does not the right hon. Lady understand that it is not only we on this side of the House who favour that freeze, and that there are growing numbers of people in the United States who favour the freeze? Will she open her eyes at last and understand what is happening in the world and try to throw the influence of this country on to the side of genuine disarmament?

Genuine disarmament will consist, not in voting for a freeze, which gives the Soviet Union superiority—

Warmonger.

but in voting for a balance, or a zero option, which is not a freeze, and persuading the Soviet Union to remove the SS20s. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so reluctant to take that simple step?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the dictator of Mozambique, Mr. Machel, recently issued an invitation to Cuban troops to enter that country. As my right hon. Friend is aware that the Cubans have a limited logistic capacity and will therefore need to use either Soviet aircraft or Soviet ships, and as the South Africans have clearly said that they will impede such a move, will she take early action to show where we would stand in such a situation before it becomes so serious as to threaten the whole of the Western position in the South Atlantic?

I think my hon. Friend is saying that the Soviet Union pursues its aims of Communist domination by force, threat of force, subversion or proxy. My hon. Friend gave one example of domination by proxy. We are against the Soviet Union increasing its domination. We believe in democracy, not Communism.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm the report in The Sunday Times this week to the effect that she had decided to save the Ravenscraig steelworks three months ago? Will she now come clean and tell the Scottish TUC and the delegation representing Scottish opinion the whole truth when she meets them later today? Will she give an assurance that her intention to save Ravenscraig means that there will be no partial closure or rundown now or in the future?

I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave last week, save to say that I shall be meeting a Scottish delegation later today, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will make a statement—I hope at the beginning of next week—about the future of the five plants.

Has my right hon. Friend received notice yet of an intention of the part of several thousands of women to link arms around the thousand or so Russian missiles already installed and pointing at Western Europe? If she has not received notice of that, does she agree that it shows again that CND sympathisers ignore the cause of our problems and concentrate merely on some of the surface effects?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the way to ensure that cruise missiles are not deployed is to secure the removal of the Russian SS20s, which are already deployed. Our attention should be directed to that fact.

As the Prime Minister is to spend part of the afternoon discussing steel, will she consider drafting a suitable Christmas message to my constituents? Is she aware that in the Port Talbot travel-to-work area 8,500 people have been out of work for more than six months, and that the Government's special measures for the steel areas, announced more than two and a half years ago, have so far produced a mere 550 jobs? What hope is there for my constituents that they will ever work again?

The hope for constituents everywhere is that we can become more competitive. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will not accept the only answer that provides a solution. We must become more competitive so that hon. Members' constituents may make goods and services that appeal to the constituents of other hon. Members, and get a bigger share of both the home and export markets. Without that fundamental truth we cannot gain a larger number of jobs in the country.

Is not the vindication of NATO's decision to insist on negotiations over intermediate missiles the fact that the Soviet Union has now made an offer, albeit insufficient, on reductions? Surely that only points to the need for persistence and tenacity in the negotiations over the next nine or so difficult months? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that before the outcome of the negotiations, and before any decisions are taken, there will be an opportunity for this House to decide whether, if the outcome is unsuccessful, cruise missiles will be deployed in this country?

I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, that the way to secure a reduction of nuclear weapons and keep our own security is to get a balanced reduction, and that the way to do that is to persist with multilateral attempts at disarmament, as we are doing. On the possible deployment of cruise missiles if the Soviet Union does not remove all its SS20s, my right hon. Friend, now the Foreign Secretary, then the Secretary of State for Defence, made a statement to the House on 13 December 1979. That was followed by a debate on nuclear weapons on 24 January 1980. That debate ended with a vote in support of the Government of 304. There were only 52 opposed to the Government.

Is the Prime Minister refusing—

Order.

rose—

Order. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has no more right to behave like that than has anyone else.

Not sitting next to me.

In the light of the question that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has just posed, does my right hon. Friend think that she would be entitled to ask him, if there were such a debate and the House passed such a proposition, to give a guarantee on behalf of his party that if he ever had any influence on our affairs at any time in the future he would use it to uphold the decision that the House had taken?

I may have the right to ask him, but I believe that I should forgo that right. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have heard what my hon. Friend said.

On the Prime Minister's other main theme today, the damage to democracy, does she understand that the fact that many people are now not voting in successive by-elections is a direct result of the feeling of hopelessness among people, for which she is directly responsible? When the right hon. Lady meets the deputation from Scotland today, will she personally apologise to them for refusing to meet them, having completely ignored them on their last visit to London to discuss the subject of steel making in Scotland?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question I say "No, Sir". I am meeting a delegation today, comprising many people from Scotland. It would hardly be appropriate for me to apologise for meeting them.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports today of the 12-month sentence, eight months of which have been suspended, which was passed at the Leeds crown court on a man who pleaded guilty to two charges of raping a girl who was only six years old? Does my right hon. Friend understand that most people will regard such a lenient sentence as wholly incomprehensible?

Yes, I do. Indeed, I am one such person. I have been in touch with the Lord Chancellor, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson), and he has called for all the papers on this case to ascertain the facts. As an interim measure the Lord Chancellor has given instructions to all circuit administrators that in no circumstances is a charge of rape to be listed for hearing except before one of the judges authorised to try murders or before a judge expressly approved by the presiding judge of the circuit.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I always stop questions at 3.30 pm, except when I have said that I shall allow extra time for a given reason.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On several occasions in this House, I have been told by you that it is out of order to criticise a judge who has made a certain decision.

So have I.

Is that ruling simply to be applied in one case and not in another? If it is the ruling, it should be applied to everyone, including the Prime Minister.

The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have from time to time ruled that a judge can be criticised only if there is a motion on the Order Paper.

Throw her out then.

I took the view that I did today because no judge was named. I do not know who it was. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may be satisfied that he has outlined what is normally the correct position. [Interruption.] There is no point in pursuing the matter now. The question has been asked and answered.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Over several weeks the Prime Minister appears to have deliberately misled the House in quoting the number of nuclear warheads on both sides. In fact, the figures are—

Order. Points of order are not for that sort of thing.

Further to that point of order raised by—

Order. I just ruled that that was not a point of order. Perhaps I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the criticism of the judge?

In view of your reply, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, (Mr. Price) would it not be helpful to the House, both in this and in future instances—the name of the judge and knowledge of the case is in the possession of the House—for you to make a statement on this matter tomorrow so that we can see whether there has been a breach of our rules in this instance? That would guide the House in dealing with such questions in future.

Order. There is no need to wait until tomorrow. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) drew my attention to a breach of our rules, which I said had taken place—[Interruption.] Order. The responsibility is mine. I allowed the question and therefore—[Interruption.] Order. I do not intend to speak against competition. I allowed the question. I believe I made a mistake, but I did allow it. Therefore, I can only say to the House that in future the rule will stand and be observed. I hope that that satisfies the House.

It may regularise the matter if, as the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) appear to wish, I withdraw the use of the word "incomprehensible" in connection with that prison sentence. That I do. With all due respect, I stand by the arrangements that the Lord Chancellor has made.

rose—

rose—

rose—

Order. Before I take any further points of order, let me say to the House that there are three important statements to be made as well as two applications under Standing Order No. 9 before we get down to the main business of the day. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members' points of order are genuine. Mr. John Morris.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that when I call a right hon. and learned Member on a point of order, his point of order must wait?

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), was it not obvious to the House—

Order. I have made a statement to the House, which I hope that the House has accepted. We shall not reopen that question, whatever happens. I shall not take further points of order on that question.

rose—

Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to refer to another subject I shall listen, but I am not taking further points of order on a matter upon which I have made a forthright statement to the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were assured earlier that the White Paper on the Falkland Islands would be available in the Vote Office at 3.30 pm. It is now nearly 3.40 pm and it is still not available in the Vote Office. Will you investigate that?

Order. I should tell the House that we have a private notice question before we come to that statement.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order has been raised previously. From today's Order Paper you will see that 78 questions were tabled to the Prime Minister by Back Benchers on both sides of the House. However, certain right hon. Members, who rarely come to the House—when they do they can always rely on being called—were called, and they asked more than one supplementary question. By doing so they deprived 75 hon. Members of the chance of asking the Prime Minister their questions. There is nothing to stop those right hon. Members from tabling their own questions to the Prime Minister. In future should not those right hon. Members be treated in the same way as every other Back Bencher? They should table their own questions and then they can be called to ask supplementary questions.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice. It seems to me that—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. It seems to me that hon. Members are being inspired one after another to raise points of order. We must move on to the private notice question.