asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish the findings of the board of inquiry into the accident in Wiltshire on Saturday 10 January involving a Royal Air Force vehicle; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to change emergency procedures, following the accident to the military convoy in Wiltshire on 10 January; and if he will make a statement.

For details of the accident I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 19 January. The report of the board of inquiry has not yet been submitted to Ministers, but I understand that it is classified and will not therefore be published. The requirement for changes in procedures will be assessed in the light of careful consideration of the board's findings.

Does this incident not illustrate the paradox that the very existence of weapons which it is claimed will never be used, yet are for the defence of Britain, places the population in jeopardy?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I cannot comment on the particular consignment involved in this convoy. However, I can assure him and the House that there was never any hazard to the public from the accident at any time. With regard to the wider defence paradox to which he referred, it has been the policy of successive Governments, until now adopted by the official Opposition, that it is in the interests of our defence and security that we have nuclear weapons which are there to deter, and are there not to be used.

Can the Minister confirm that this juggernaut, which lay on its side for 18 hours, was carrying nuclear depth-charges? What was the risk of an explosion or nuclear leak? Did not the accident put at risk not just soldiers but the civilian population? Is it not time for a thorough review of the emergency procedures, involving the civilian authorities? In the meantime, should not the Government issue new guidelines covering the width of roads that such vehicles should use and the weather conditions in which they should be allowed to travel?

All the earlier parts of the hon. Gentleman's question were answered when I replied to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who asked the first question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall study very carefully the findings of the board of inquiry which has been set up following the accident. If there is a need to make changes in procedures or practices, we will consider that most carefully.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that while it is perfectly clear that a mistake was made with regard to the accident, my constituents and I would rather that he took his time over the board of inquiry and came to correct conclusions, which would include consideration of the emergency procedures to be adopted in those circumstances? Will he also accept that a far greater danger to my constituents comes from the antics of members of CND and Cruisewatch, who can get close to the vehicles, cut brake pipes and attack the people and vehicles, and those vehicle convoys should be far better protected from such activists?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I assure him that we will give a considered response to the board of inquiry report. I fully endorse his latter point and I join him in deploring the irresponsibility of those who seek to obstruct the proper movement of military vehicles on the public highway.

Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what might happen in the Soviet Union if Soviet citizens decided to behave in this way? Does he believe that the authorities there would view with equanimity people behaving in such a way that could only give comfort to the nation's enemies? Does he think that the mythical hon. Member for Vladivostok, North-West would be able to stand up in the Kremlin, or wherever, and defend the actions of his constituents?

My hon. Friend makes an entirely pertinent point. The freedoms which, happily, we in Britain enjoy are certainly not enjoyed in the East. The rationale of our defence policy is that we continue to enjoy those fundamental freedoms. The Opposition are happy to take advantage of those freedoms, but are not prepared to devote sufficient resources to their defence policy to ensure that they are maintained.

While it clearly makes sense not to reveal details about the essential character of nuclear warheads in Britain, why does the Ministry of Defence not follow the example of the civil nuclear industry and be much more open about its safety procedures? Does the Minister accept that that sort of frankness would do much more to allay public anxiety than these continued bland assurances that nothing can go wrong?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat mistaken, because, as we have made clear in previous parliamentary answers, detailed precautions are taken. The precautions that we take over military nuclear materials are at least as stringent as the precautions applied in the movement of civil nuclear materials, and those were set out in full in the Official Report of 25 July 1983, at column 1291.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is the sort of vehicle which would be used to transport nuclear waste from Devonport to Gillingham, if present reports are correct that my right hon. Friend plans such a movement of nuclear waste to the former naval dockyard in my constituency?

I regret that I cannot comment on the method of transporting nuclear materials of this sort.

Will the Minister confirm that one of the freedoms which our American allies happily enjoy, but which we do not, is the Freedom of Information Act? As a result of that, a report was published in 1984 informing United States citizens, but not the citizens of the United Kingdom, of exercises Sharp Foil Senator and Franchise, which were joint exercises between the United States and British military forces on the safe transporting of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom and in Europe. Will he confirm that the nuclear accident response units in Britain and in Europe were described in that report as lagging behind the national capability of the United States? Can he also confirm that at least we are on that level in trying to deal with these terrible accidents?

It is no secret that we regularly practise the safety aspects of the movement of nuclear materials. It is right for us to do so, and that has been done by successive Governments. When the hon. Gentleman draws a parallel with the United States, I must remind him that the United States takes exactly the same position as successive British Governments have taken. The United States' position is the same as our own. We neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons, and we do not comment on their method of transportation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what procurement projects over £20 million are running three months behind delivery schedules; and if he will make a statement.

There are great problems of definition raised in this question and it would involve disproportionate cost to define and collect the data.

If that is too difficult a question for the Minister, will he tell the House how many cases there are of project delivery and completion dates being postponed and re-set, thus reducing the apparent delay? Further, will he tell the House how far these delays are condoned by his Department in order to accommodate the rising costs associated with the Trident missile?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not know about condoning such reprogramming of projects. In reply to the first question, we cannot put our hands on the information in the form that the hon. Gentleman needs it.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is considerable anxiety in defence fields about the delay in the Foxhunter radar for the Tornado F3? Does he agree that this rather makes nonsense of the airborne early warning debates if we cannot fit the appropriate radar to the aeroplane that is supposed to defend us in the event of hostilities?

There have been delays on the Foxhunter radar. However, deliveries are well under way. We are discussing with GEC Avionics the basis on which to resolve the problems associated with the current radar sets and to achieve an early demonstration of acceptable performance. I cannot comment further while discussions with GEC are in progress.

Late deliveries will result in underspend by the Ministry of Defence. Although the Minister cannot give the information that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has called for, will he tell the House what was the underspend by the Ministry of Defence during 1985–86 due to either the inefficiency of the firms or industrial disputes, and what is the estimated underspend by the Ministry of Defence during the current year?

It is too early to estimate what the underspend for this year will be. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with the information on the previous year.

Can my hon. Friend say to what extent late delivey by manufacturers has occurred because of frequent, and probably unnecessary, alterations of specification by the Ministry of Defence?

The alteration of specification has been a difficulty in the past. This is why the more that we can move on to fixed-price contracts, the more will Ministry of Defence specifications as well as price and delivery be tied down. That is why we are moving towards that as much as we can.

Will the Minister bear in mind that although it is advantageous to have a fixed-price contract, sometimes if one is too rigid about that one loses the advantage of advancing technology? Will he consider having slight flexibility in fixed-price contracts?

One must accept that there are occasionally quantum leaps in technology which make it necessary to revise a specification. There may be change in the perceived threat, which would mean that one would have to change the specification as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Falkland Islands.

My recent visit to the Falkland Islands was most interesting and informative and it gave me the opportunity to review the garrison before it completes its move to the Mount Pleasant complex. I was also able to talk to many members of the armed forces and the islanders at all levels.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement and welcome the opening of the new Mount Pleasant airport complex the weekend before last. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that project means that the defence of the islands can be secured more effectively, more quickly and more economically? If that is my right hon. Friend's interpretation of it, does he hold out the prospect of the islands being adequately defended with fewer armed services personnel there than hitherto?

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct in that. The successful completion of the new Mount Pleasant complex will enable us to have adequate defence for the islands at all times and to do this with fewer forces than would otherwise have been needed, because we now have the ability to reinforce quickly and efficiently.

What professional advice came from senior Royal Air Force commanders about the adequacy of air cover, and particularly the Phantoms?

Our advice from all our military advisers, including those in the RAF, is that the present provision for air defence is adequate with the likely threat in mind.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it costs a lot of money to garrison the Falklands, there are none the less considerable advantages in continuing with that, in that battalions that have served there go down as good battalions and come back as crack battalions because of the way in which they can train out there and operate military equipment?

I very much agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Apart from the undoubtedly high training value of what the forces do there, it is immensely impressive to see what they achieve when they are all there for a total period of four months each. They look extremely professional and they are very professional in what they do.

Does the Secretary of State recall that in his honeymoon period as Secretary of State for Defence, before he was gagged by the Ministry of Defence spokesman, he said that it was his intention to reduce the garrison on the Falklands to 1,000 men? Will he break free from the shackles of the MOD and tell the House whether that is still his intention?

I did not know that I had had a honeymoon, but I am not sure that I would choose to spend it with the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we never give details of particular force levels at any time, but they are fully adequate to deal with any threat.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of the Trident missile system; and if he will make a statement.

The revised estimate for Trident at average 1986–87 prices is £9,265 million. In line with established conventions adopted for the recosting of the defence programme, the estimate is based on the average exchange rate applicable in June 1986, namely, £1=$1·50. The United Kingdom share of the revised estimate is 62 per cent.—its highest recorded level. After allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, this represents a real reduction in estimate over last year of some £546 million.

It is now assessed that on average the programme will provide some 7,500 direct and 6,000 indirect jobs over the procurement period, with the figures rising to 15,000 direct and 12,000 indirect in the peak years.

The Select Committee on Defence previously asked that when announcing the annual revised estimate I should report on the state of the project as a whole. I am pleased to report that the project remains on programme to enter service as planned in the mid-1990s. There has been no slippage in the in-service date since the decision to proceed with Trident II was announced in March 1982. I am, as last year, sending to the Chairmen of the Select Committee on Defence and of the Public Accounts Committee a more detailed report covering the points on which the Select Committee on Defence sought advice. I am also placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we accepted the advice of the Labour party and spent the money on conventional weapons rather than on Trident, all we would get is 1·1 armoured divisions, which would still leave the Soviets with a massive 2:1 superiority?

My hon. and learned Friend is correct. I am not sure whether it is 1·1 armoured divisions, or 1. In any case, it is wholly inconsistent with the theory that by producing such an extra division we would in any way outweigh the loss of the Trident deterrent, which is a vital part of our defence.

In the event of possible cuts in ballistic missile stocks by the United States and the Soviet Union, do the Government plan to continue British escalation of the arms race in the face of superpower de-escalation?

We have always made it clear that if there were to be large reductions in ballistic missile systems we would regard it as right that we should be prepared to consider whether we could make a further contribution. I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will be able to confirm that, having allegedly come to an agreement with the SDP on defence, the Liberal party has abandoned its links with the CND, because it would be a great reassurance if that could be made clear.

Does not escalation depend on the number of missiles and warheads? Is not the Government's position that we have a minimum deterrent and will continue to retain it? Is that not what is happening. thereby giving us a flexibility that did not exist when we had to bring in Chevaline?

My hon. Friend is right. Our present deterrent, the Polaris system, is a minimum deterrent, and our proposed future deterrent, the Trident system, will also be a minimum deterrent, in the context of the defences that it will have to breach in the mid-1990s and onwards. Trident is still a minimum deterrent.

Will the Secretary of State give the House an indication of the share of the naval procurement that is engaged by Trident? Will he explain the impact of that on the conventional fleet and his intention or otherwise of ordering three frigates a year?

This has no direct effect on either of those points. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the expected cost of the Trident system over its life will average out at 3 per cent. of the defence budget, or 6 per cent. of the procurement budget. Even at its peak it will be only about 13 per cent. of the procurement budget in total. Today's announcement of lower costs for Trident makes that position even better.

Would it be a fair summary to say that while the SDP and Liberal party are agreed in their opposition to Trident, the SDP believes in obsolete weapons and the Liberals do not know what their mind is? Was not what we saw yesterday less a launch of a successful defence policy and more a relaunch into political obscurity?

I am not sure how it is possible — although, no doubt we shall discover — to relaunch a non-policy. As an extra twist, the Liberal party has made it clear that it does not have the information to be able to decide what should replace the Trident system, but it seems to be equally certain, in spite of that lack of information, that whatever it is it is not Trident.

I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the reduction in cost, or most of it, is because, happily for him, at least temporarily, the exchange rate of the pound against the dollar is fairly favourable. Does he agree that he has no control over that, and of course exchange rates can go the other way? Does he agree that the cost of Trident, be it £9 billion or £10 billion at the end of the day, will be borne by our non-nuclear defence forces? That cost will be borne by the cost of equipment for the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force. What on earth is the point of spending money on what is called, chillingly, a weapon of the last resort when we will not have enough money to buy weapons of the first resort to prevent war in Europe becoming a nuclear war?

First of all, I am sorry if I did not make it clear earlier that the figure I have quoted of £546 million real saving on the programme is after taking account of the exchange rate variations. Therefore, that figure is a real reduction in the real cost of the Trident programme.

With regard to whether it is right to spend money on the programme, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no way in which the expenditure of an equivalent sum of money on conventional weapons could begin to replace the deterrent effect of the Trident system. That is the absolute justification for the expenditure on the programme. As regards the comparison that has been made, I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman is so keen to protect the rest of the budget by abolishing the Trident system, because the Tornado programme is a larger programme and I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman calling for that to be abandoned in order to save the budget.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of United Kingdom jobs in defence-related industries, giving a separate figure for jobs related to the Polaris and Trident programmes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest estimate of jobs created by the Trident programme.

Nearly 400,000 United Kingdom jobs were sustained by the Ministry of Defence's equipment expenditure in 1984–85, the latest year for which figures are available. Exports of defence equipment accounted for a further 120,000 jobs. As regards the Polaris programme, an estimated 11,000 Ministry of Defence civilians are employed in maintaining the nuclear deterrent. Finally, I refer my hon. Friends to the answer that I gave a few moments ago on estimated jobs created as a result of the Trident programme.

I am sure my right hon. Friend is delighted that 1986 was a record year for defence exports, with sales totalling over £5 billion. Therefore, is he not dismayed at the Labour party policy, which was ratified at the 1986 conference, which would abolish the defence export sales organisation and put thousands of British jobs at risk?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I have noted that the Labour party proposes to disband the defence export sales organisation, and it admits that its policies will

"lead inevitably to a major reduction in Britain's current arms sales".

That will come as shocking news to those who depend on defence exports for a job, and I hope that the Labour party has noted that.

In the unlikely event of a Labour Government being elected, Trident being scrapped and American bases being removed from this country, can my right hon. Friend say how many United Kingdom jobs would be lost?

I estimate that United States forces in the United Kingdom at present provide, directly and indirectly, about 30,000 jobs for British citizens. If Labour party policy is to remove all United States nuclear bases from the United Kingdom, those jobs would clearly be put at risk, quite apart from the damage that that policy would do to NATO's defences.

Why should the House of Commons or working people in the country as a whole believe a word that the Secretary of State for Defence and other Tory Members say with their synthetic sympathy about the number of jobs at risk in the defence industries when 4·5 million unemployed people in Britain now get no sympathy from Tory Members? If the Secretary of State thinks that Trident is such a popular programme, why does he not transfer the £9·25 billion into the health and housing expenditure of the Government and hold a flag day for Trident?

I am dubious about the hon. Gentleman's claim to speak for the working people of this country. I cannot understand how even he imagines that the unemployment problem would be assisted by deliberately destroying 30,000 British jobs by the removal of United States bases. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make representations to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to abandon that policy forthwith.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is nothing to be proud of in the export of arms to the rest of the world, especially the Third world, which is very much more in need of socially useful goods? If the money that is spent on arms, exported or otherwise, was spent on socially useful goods we would live in a much better and more moral country.

A great deal of money is spent, and successful exports are carried out, by this country in many matters that have nothing to do with arms sales. The hon. Gentleman has to face the fact that there are many thousands of jobs in this country directly dependent upon the defence industry and if he proposes to destroy it he will answer for it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of a random survey conducted by the North-Western Evening Mail in Barrow, published last Friday, in which people were asked,

"Do you believe that the country needs an independent nuclear deterrent?"

Is he further aware that 91 per cent. said yes?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that fact. On every occasion that the British people have been asked to pronounce on that matter they have made their views very clear. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, the Trident programme will provide employment over the next few years for 4,000 in Barrow, where the submarines are built, and about 2,500 construction jobs on the Clyde while the facilities there are being made.

The less the Secretary of State says about jobs, the better. There are far fewer people employed in the defence industry now than in 1979 when the Government took office. Jobs have been lost in the ordnance factories, in the dockyards at Chatham, Devonport, Rosyth and in many other establishments. Is he aware that of the 400,000 jobs he mentioned, at least 95 per cent. of them are concerned with non-nuclear defence equipment? If, as we believe, there will be cuts in non-nuclear defence equipment to pay for Trident, a substantial proportion of those jobs will be put at risk by the Government's policies.

I admire the right hon. Gentleman's courage in raising the question of defence expenditure when it is over 20 per cent. higher in real terms than it was when the Labour party was last in government. I can understand that he wishes to keep off the subject of the effect on jobs of the Labour party's policy to cancel Trident. It is no exaggeration to say that it would not only devastate the economy of a place such as Barrow but would have devastating effects on the west and east of Scotland at Rosyth and Faslane. The Labour party will have to answer to many people for those destructive policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current work being undertaken for his Department by Electronic Data Systems.

A subsidiary of Electronic Data Systems used to have a small contract to provide computer bureau services to the Royal Air Force. However, this work has now been transferred to another company with which we have no reason to believe EDS has any interest.

Do Defence Ministers accept the documentary evidence that I have sent to the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, Treasury, to the effect that EDS attempted to abuse the immigration rules of this country? In that light, may we have an assurance that the Ministry of Defence will not consider EDS for major data contracts, which could ultimately have a value greater than that of AWACS?

It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to decide whether an offence has been committed and we shall await advice from the Home Office. In the meantime, EDS will remain on our list of potential contractors.

Further to the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), what are the implications for the use of high technology in British defences of the determination of the United States Government to enforce their laws extra-territorially, well beyond the agreement of COCON, which was supinely accepted by his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry?

I am confused as to what that has to do with EDS. We are having discussion with the United States Government on extra-territoriality and hope to reach agreement soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected outturn for defence procurement expenditure for 1986–87.

The defence procurement Vote provides for expenditure in the current year of £8,762 million.

In so far as the outturn figure includes expenditure on the Zircon project, and not wishing to push the Minister on any aspect of that matter which is classified, may I ask him to tell us how much has been spent on that project to date?

The House will not expect me to comment on that project. Any question that the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask would be better put in writing to my right hon. Friend.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me, in the light of his Department's contracts with Shrewsbury companies and their importance to our local economy and job provision, whether the Opposition have advised him of the so-called socially useful purposes to which the main battle tank engine production line at Perkins in Shrewsbury would be put, together with the DROPS ammunition project at Multilift — each of which provides a considerable number of jobs and much local income — if the Labour party's policy were put into operation?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a difficult problem. I do not see how people involved in high technology industries will be able to switch to making relatively low technology products for the Third world.

Does the Ministry intend to procure three frigates and one AOR next year?

We are permanently keeping our future purchases of ships under review.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in seeking to save money by trying to replace Trident with Tomahawk, which appears to be one of the options that the alliance is dithering over at the moment, it would be replacing a proven system with an inadequate one, which would be both dangerous and disturbing to the NATO Alliance? Does he further agree that the time has come for the alliance leaders to own up and admit that they belong to a unilateralist party?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Submarine-launched cruise missiles have grave difficulties, one of which is that they have to operate in shallow water. If they become detectable, they are less of a deterrent than something that has a larger area of ocean in which to operate.

Is the Minister concerned about the regional balance of the procurement budget, and will he confirm that 50 per cent. of the budget is spent in the south-east of England, including London, and only 2 per cent. in Wales and 6 per cent. in Scotland?

I have to accept that there is a regional imbalance in defence expenditure. We are always looking at ways of righting that imbalance.

Is my hon. Friend fully satisfied that that proportion of this outturn that is attributable to the Nimrod programme was spent on Nimrod and was not siphoned off to spend on other projects by GEC?

I would need notice to answer such a question and I invite my hon. Friend to put it in writing.

As the Government's White Paper on expenditure forecasts a cut in defence expenditure of £1 billion over the next three years, will the Minister tell us which part of the equipment programme will be hit by that cut?

The procurement programme is always under review.

Does my hon. Friend's Department still estimate that there is a sizeable relative price effect which influences defence expenditure in the Ministry of Defence, and to what extent have his improved managerial systems within the Department led to some discernible economy?

We have been able to get a much larger percentage of our contracts on to a fixed price arrangement and this has led to great savings, which we estimate are not less than 5 per cent., and may be as much as 10 per cent., of the overall procurement budget. That goes some way towards offsetting the inevitable inflationary increases in defence equipment which are above the general level of inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government have assessed the likelihood of an attack on Britain by Soviet short-range intermediate nuclear forces.

That threat is under continuous assessment.

As the Reykjavik summit raised many expectations about the possibility of removing nuclear weapons from Europe, will there be a United Kingdom initiative through NATO to set up negotiations for a freeze on short-range nuclear weapons, even if there is no progress on long-range intermediate nuclear weapons?

As the House has been told on many occasions, we are more interested in obtaining reductions than in producing a freeze. A freeze in that area would simply freeze a massive Soviet superiority. On short-range systems, in Europe the Warsaw Pact has a 9:1 advantage in missiles in the 150 km to 1,000 km range and an 8:1 advantage in missiles with a range below 150 km. It would make no sense at all to freeze that degree of Soviet superiority.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that so long as Britain has as an effective independent nuclear deterrent, as she has today and will have if the Government are returned in future with the Trident system, and so long as we remain a strong member of the NATO Alliance, with American nuclear weapons based in Britain, there will never be a serious nuclear threat to Britain? However, if the Labour party's policies were ever to be implemented that risk would increase enormously.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Provided that we maintain the policies that have stood us so well for the past 40 years we shall continue to enjoy our peace with freedom. If we follow the policies advocated by the official Opposition, we could begin to jeopardise that.

Will the Minister return to the question that was put to him? Will he confirm that if the British Government were to support the proposal of the Socialist parties in West and East Germany for a 150 km nuclear-free corridor, it would save Britain from attack by short-range nuclear weapons?

The hon. Gentleman should refer to the remarks that I made on that in the recent debate on the Army. If he consults the Official Report he will see that the proposal for a 150 km nuclear-free zone in the central front makes no sense at all because every square inch of that zone can be successfully targeted by battlefield nuclear weapons possessed by the Warsaw Pact.

How long would the British Corps in Germany, which is really an extension of the United Kingdom, survive a Russian attack without being able to call upon at least battlefield nuclear weapons?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would make no sense at all to move the tactical nuclear capability of 1st British Corps. As we have made clear on many occasions, if the role of 1st British Corps were reduced to a conventional role only, its position on the central front would be completely non-sustainable.

Will the Minister assure the House that, in responding to the threat of Soviet conventionally armed tactical ballistic missiles, priority will be given to improving passive defences such as target hardening and dispersal, rather than being tempted down the road of exotic and expensive technologies involved in a European star wars system?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government attach great importance to passive defences and the hardening programme to which he refers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party's policy were adopted the Soviets would not need to bother attacking? [Interruption.]

Yes!

Order. Interruptions take up time.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that for 40 years Britain has not had a serious threat of being subjected to nuclear blackmail. The policies that the Labour party wishes to follow could well expose Britain to nuclear blackmail.

The Minister referred to battlefield nuclear weapons and 1st British Corps. Will he confirm that 1st British Corps does not have any nuclear weapons and that the nuclear weapons are American-owned and controlled? Will he confirm also what General Rogers said the other day in an interview — that every member of NATO. except France and Iceland, has to agree to unleash battlefield nuclear weapons? If General Rogers is correct, does that mean that any country in NATO, apart from France and Iceland, could veto the unleashing of those weapons?

I do not know what criticism the right hon. Gentleman is making, because the arrangements for the nuclear weapons of 1st British Corps are exactly the same as those enjoyed by previous Labour Governments.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who serve the most vulnerable in our society — the disabled, the sick and the elderly — should remember that the telephone is a lifeline, as should Opposition Members who support the bully tactics of striking militants?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the industrial action and its effects on businesses, jobs, the old and the sick. Having expressed that concern, it is right that we should also thank those employees of British Telecom who are keeping the telephone network going, and those who are maintaining the emergency services in spite of working under difficult circumstances at times.

It is now publicly clear from the Prime Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that the Government knew in October of the intention to include specific material on a secret defence project in a BBC programme. Can the Prime Minister explain the contrast between four months of complacency and four days of activity last week, of seeking injunctions, sending Treasury Solicitor's letters, threatening newspaper editors and sending the police into magazine offices? Why so casual for so long and so frenzied so late?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in October 1986 the Government learnt of the BBC's intention to show specific material on a secret defence project. Discussions took place between the Government and the BBC, which subsequently decided, as a result of those discussions, not to show the material on the project. Therefore, the discussions were successful.

Does the Prime Minister really hope to convince the country that a chat with the BBC is a sufficient way in which to safeguard national security? Does she agree — [Interruption.] — that if a national security secret is worth having it is worth keeping, and that it required proper action in October to see that it was kept? Does she agree that her actions, subsequent to last week, have been produced by lateness, clumsiness and vindictiveness?

The discussions with the BBC were successful. The BBC decided not to show the film. I am advised that no injunction would have been obtained without evidence against the New Statesman that would have satisfied the judge that there was a significant risk of the New Statesman publishing material on the project. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should direct his strictures against the New Statesman and Duncan Campbell.

The New Statesman would not have come into it had the Prime Minister acted when she knew that there was likely to he material that would jeopardise national security, as she defined it. Will the Prime Minister now tell us why there was complacency and inactivity for four months and such frenzy for four days?

I have already said that, as a result of the action which the Government took—

The right hon. Lady failed to act.

—the BBC did not show that film. I have already said that, with regard to the New Statesman, I am advised that no injunction would have been obtained without evidence that would have satisfied the judge that there was a significant risk of the New Statesman publishing material on the project. Again I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he should direct his strictures at Left-wing organs such as the New Statesman, which have, in spite of the fact that the BBC refused to show the film, deliberately attempted to release material which is contrary to national security.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the practice of consulting the Leader of the Opposition on matters of security, bearing in mind that Mr. Duncan Campbell, an adviser to the Labour party on security and defence matters, already has one conviction for breaking the Official Secrets Act? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

That is not a matter for me.

Is the Prime Minister concerned — [Interruption.]

Order. This noise takes up a lot of time.

Is the Prime Minister concerned al the damage done to British-Irish relations by the disclosure of the interception of communications with the Irish embassy? Is it the Government's policy to monitor communications of members of the European Community in this way? Is this not another example of the case for a senior parliamentary committee to oversee the intelligence services?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a long-established practice that Governments do not comment on matters of this kind. That was the practice of the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman's party kept in power too.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the educational policies of Brent have now spread to Wolverhampton where, at the Colton Hills school, white and West Indian pupils have been forced to attend Punjabi lessons without the consent of their parents and without proper consultation? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that when the parents objected to this piece of social engineering they were treated with abuse and arrogance? Is it not clear that the Tory manifesto ought to contain a clear commitment to reducing the power of politicians and to increasing the power of parents?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern on this matter and of the fact that he has already had an Adjournment debate in the House on it. As he knows, the new Education Act gives parents stronger representation on governing bodies, and the first annual meeting for parents must be held before the end of this year's summer term.

With regard to the wider matter, we are anxious that parents should be given a stronger voice in the education of their children and that they should have greater freedom to choose the school which best suits their child.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the House and the nation are watching the Government farce on Zircon—[Interruption.]

Order. Noise takes up a lot of time.

Who arranged the initial botching and who then arranged the bullying?

I think that people outside the House are very critical of those who choose to use national defence secrets for their own personal gain.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that President Reagan has now signed orders which will come into effect this weekend and which will increase substantially duties on gin and other EEC products? Will she use her best endeavours to persuade the Americans to approach these negotiations over trade problems with the EEC in a reasonable frame of mind and avoid a trade war, which can only harm all the parties concerned?

We are greatly concerned about the matter which my hon. Friend has raised. We take the view that the enlargement of the European Community is something that benefits the United States as well, and is rather more than a trade matter. So we have protested very vigorously against the measures that the United States proposes and will continue to negotiate with it on this and other trading matters. I agree with my hon. Friend that if we go into a measure of protectionism now there is no telling where it may end.

Has the Prime Minister been notified that yesterday police removed correspondence to Duncan Campbell from a senior member of her Government? Has she been further advised that the correspondence makes it clear that the senior member of her Government supplied information for the series "The Secret Society", met Duncan Campbell to discuss it and was willing to appear in one of the programmes? In view of her strictures against Duncan Campbell and the New Statesman, does she not think that the House is entitled to know the name of that senior member of her Government, who only last autumn took such a markedly different attitude to both of them?

The police have used powers which they have under the appropriate and proper authorities. Any information that they have obtained is a matter for them and for any prosecuting authorities.

Will my right hon. Friend ask her right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to lay a report before Parliament setting out the likely employment consequences if Her Majesty's Government were to adopt a policy of a minimum national wage of £80 a week, control of inward investment and other policies espoused by the Labour party? Will she confirm that the likely outcome would be a million more jobs lost?

If these policies were to be followed, and if we added to them the phasing out of all civilian nuclear power and the removal of all American nuclear bases, the result would be very much higher unemployment in this country than we now have.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

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

In the light of the regrettable lapses as regards security and the intelligence services, is this not the wrong time for the Government to be considering booting out the Ministry of Defence policemen guarding MI5 and MI6 headquarters? Is this not the ultimate idiocy in privatisation? Will the Prime Minister call for the files and see if these proposals can be conveniently shelved?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do not discuss these matters in the House.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend advise Her Majesty to arrange an urgent and important meeting with the Leader of the Opposition so that he can explain his recent eccentric behaviour in saying on one day that he would not talk to Sinn Fein and, on the next, sending his Northern Ireland spokesman to speak to them? Does this not smell of hypocrisy?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we take the view that Ministers do not talk to Sinn Fein. What the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition does is a matter for him.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

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

Is it not a fact that the Government bungled the matter last week? Is The Guardian not correct in its editorial when it suggests that the Prime Minister is now trying to cover her embarrassment

"by increasingly dubious and reckless means"?

Is that not a ridiculous way for the Government to behave? Would the Prime Minister like to comment on the increasing press and media criticism of her reckless, dubious, bungling ways?

The action of the Government prevented the showing of the film, or the BBC agreed not to show the film. The trouble has arisen because of Left-wing organs like the New Statesman and people anxious to ferret out the secrets of national security in order to sell them either for personal gain or some kind of personal notoriety.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27th January.

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

In view of the detailed information on satellites in a book entitled The Ties That Bind, published in 1985 by Allen and Unwin — far more detailed information than anything Mr. Duncan Campbell revealed either in his film or articles—why has the Prime Minister decided not to prosecute the authors of this book?

Matters of prosecution are for the prosecuting authorities, not for politicians. They never have been and never are. With regard to the recent matter, may I add to what was said in the House the other day. One breach or threatened breach will not justify a further breach.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Arising out of questions?

It will be.

It must be a point of order that I can answer, not a continuation of Question Time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The role of the Ministry of Defence police is apparently not to be discussed in this House. Can the Prime Minister tell me where the debate on the Ministry of Defence—

Order. Prime Minister's Questions are at an end.

On a point of order arising out of questions last Thursday.

I cannot take that now.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on an intervention that occurred yesterday.

I shall take it later on.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Arising out of questions today?

Yes. Can you inform the House, in the light of the Prime Minister's earlier answers, whether debate will be ruled out of order on proceedings on the Ministry of Defence Police Bill [Lords], on Wednesday, because that was the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)? If so, that will therefore be ruled out of order.

The hon. Gentleman can raise what he likes in debate, but the Prime Minister's Question Time is at an end.