To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give further details of the future military use of RAF Dishforth.

Dishforth will become the base of an Army Air Corps helicopter regiment which is being formed to support the newly titled 24th Airmobile Brigade, which has its headquarters at nearby Catterick garrison.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Dishforth is a prime site near the A1, which is developing rapidly and being significantly improved? Does he realise that there are more than 150 houses and other extensive facilities on the site? Does he accept that it is important for the project to go ahead without delay? If it were to fall foul, there are many other uses for the site. Will the military get on with it, or get out?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he is seeking. The Army will get on with it, and we plan to have the first squadron of helicopters there by the summer of next year. I confirm that all the empty married quarters, and a good part of the barracks, will be used by the Army Air Corps.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Defence Secretary about sea-launched cruise missiles.

Mr. Carlucci and I discuss a wide variety of defence and security matters. The details of our discussions are confidential.

Is it not clear that the Secretary of State has sanctioned the use of Holy Loch for sea-launched cruise missiles without the House being consulted? Is it not a fact that the occasional visits of these submarines will become frequent visits? Is that not very different from what the Secretary of State told the Defence Select Committee? Has not a major strategic defence change taken place? This is a serious matter that the House should discuss on a future occasion.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been no change in the practice or status of Holy Loch. The Government would be consulted by the United States' authorities if they wished to base a new class of nuclear weapon in the United Kingdom. United States' SSNs visit Holy Loch occasionally, but no decisions for any change of principle have been taken.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the advantage of bases on the west coast of Scotland is that they offer access to deep water so that submarines can come and go without potential enemies being able to track them down? It would be nonsense not to use them effectively and properly for the NATO deterrent.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The many military advantages of the bases on the west coast of Scotland have been recognised by all Governments, both Labour and Conservative, in the past.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a good thing that United States' ships pay frequent visits to our ports? They increase the deterrent capability of NATO, and that should be so.

My hon. and learned Friend is correct. The United States is one of our principal allies in defending western Europe and this country, and visits by its ships are very welcome.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure that red flags do not fly on Dartmoor when live firing is not taking place.

When live firing is not planned, no danger flags are flown. When firing is cancelled, for example due to bad weather, we aim to remove the danger signals as quickly as possible to permit maximum recreational use of the moor. We try to remove them in these circumstances by midday.

I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in this last great wilderness in Britain and for his courtesy and helpfulness to the conservationists, but is he aware that the 8 million people who visit the moor each year are deprived of using 70 per cent. of the high moor because of live firing, 52 weeks a year, Monday to Friday, other than in August? Will he try to persuade the Army to end its somewhat dog-in-the-manger attitude, which results in the flags flying for far longer than is necessary? Will he please do something to have them taken down when they are no longer needed?

As I have said, the moor is used for Army training and for recreational purposes. If it would be helpful, I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend, together with representatives of interested bodies, to discuss the future of Dartmoor and to listen to their suggestions and representations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those who have spent their lives in Devon, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] No, it is a fact—are aware that the presence of all branches of Her Majesty's forces in Devon is part of Devon's history, livelihood and ethos, which is greatly appreciated by those—other than some, only a few—who have come there recently?

I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. The Army has been using Dartmoor for training for over 100 years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the German Minister of Defence concerning improvements in peacetime support for British forces in Germany.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with his German counterpart on a wide range of subjects of mutual interest.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the foreign exchange cost of British forces in Germany is running at an annual rate of £1·2 billion? Does he accept that unless the Federal Republic is prepared to share part of the burden savings must be limited to good housekeeping? As the Government have reserved their position with a view to finding an alternative solution to the former offset arrangements, can my hon. Friend now say what solutions he proposes to solve this difficult problem?

I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this and, in particular, of the part that he played in the evidence that was taken by the Public Accounts Committee on host nation support a month or two ago. Following that, we have set up, in the logistics division at the Ministry of Defence, a special section to look into all these questions, including the matter of foreign exchange and the other things that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Will the Minister confirm that the improvements for which Dr. Wörner will be looking on the part of British forces in Germany, both as Secretary-General elect and as the current German Defence Minister, include sustainability, stockages and spares, shortfalls in standing ground forces, reinforcement and counter-air, certainly not the urgent modernisation of short range nuclear forces, to which the Prime Minister attaches so much importance?

Dr. Wörner appreciates as well as any Defence Minister in NATO the importance of both nuclear and conventional forces for the defence of the West. It is fortunate that NATO is getting the services of someone who has been such a distinguished Defence Minister in Germany. He certainly appreciates the importance of all those matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I should add that he made a point of choosing British forces in Germany for his last official visit before leaving his office and on that occasion said:

"The British make a decisive contribution in Germany and without BAOR and RAF Germany the defence of our country would be unthinkable."

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will implement in full the recommendations of the National Audit Office on ways of reducing the support costs of British forces in Germany? Will the Government review the Brussels treaty commitment, as the United Kingdom plays a major part in the defence of the east Atlantic and Channel areas—that is, in NATO's reinforcement—and Britain's air power can be a vital determinant against armour on the central front?

The points put forward in the National Audit Office report will be considered carefully by my Department, particularly by the new section that we have established. I have serious doubts about whether reducing the number of dependants would be the right thing to do. It seems to me that having a substantial number of unaccompanied postings to Germany would be against the interests of the armed forces and their families and would, over time, decrease the effectiveness of those forces.

If the Government are so aware of conventional needs, does the Minister share the view of Sir Martin Farndale, who, in January this year, identified a long list of deficiencies, including tanks, and the need for more and better artillery, helicopters and armoured engineer support as well as other equipment?

Any good commander-in-chief—General Farndale was certainly that—can identify improvements that he would like made in the equipment and back-up of the forces. All those matters are of concern to this country and our allies in western Europe, and we continually measure what we regard to be the priorities. We shall take all those matters into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning modernisation of nuclear weapons were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning nuclear-capable aircraft were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.

No specific procurement or deployment decisions were taken, though further guidance was provided on the way ahead and of the need to keep our forces up to date. A copy of the communiqué issued after the Brussels NPG meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman choose to announce the replacement for Britain's RAF freefall nuclear bomb on "Panorama" and not to the House? Will he state categorically whether the cost of that replacement—and all other replacements—is fully included in the Defence Estimates to be announced next week? Will he also state whether he believes that this will place in jeopardy the agreements being reached under the INF treaty?

It will certainly have no effect on the agreements reached under the INF treaty, as this refers only to ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 km. We have made a general allowance in our forward costings for possible weapons systems to replace the freefall bombs. The hon. Gentleman is not as well informed as he usually is if he imagines that I announced anything new on "Panorama". No decision has been made on what would replace the freefall bombs, but the need to decide on a replacement has been referred to many times, most notably on 4 March 1988—the hon. Gentleman will find the reference in column 1288 of Hansard—when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that we have to find a replacement for these freefall bombs in due course.

Is not the combination of more nuclear capable aircraft, more air-to-surface missiles and more United States nuclear-capable strike aircraft merely a replacement for the INF weapons cuts? Does NATO not already have superiority in such aircraft? Rather than increasing the number of such weapons, would it not be better to trade them against further Soviet arms cuts?

There has been a great reduction in the number of warheads in our provision for nuclear deterrence. More than 2,000 have been removed unilaterally over the last year or two. That is progress. With regard to the range of weapons systems, we shall in no sense be breaking the spirit or the letter of the INF treaty. We welcome that as a great achievement which our steadfastness and our unity have produced. Nevertheless, we have to maintain a range of possible options to deal with any likely attack. We must keep a range of different options—large, medium-sized and small.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is unqualified support for his policy of modernising the British nuclear deterrent—[Interruption.]—from Conservative Members at any rate, as always? Will he confirm that it is the policy of the Soviet Union to modernise its nuclear defence forces, including its short-range missile systems?

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. I think that support for this policy has been amply demonstrated in at least three general elections, and that goes very much wider than just support from Conservative Members. The Soviet Union has recognised the common sense of keeping its weapons up to date. It is modernising its missile systems with the more accurate SS21 system. Furthermore, it is planning shortly to launch two types of sea-launched cruise missiles. These are sensible modernisations of systems which, as far as I know, are not in breach of the INF treaty.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the policy of NATO is still to maintain only a minimum deterrence and that this modernisation is within that policy and meets that criterion?

I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. Our deterrent systems are always at the minimum that they can be, and that goes for the Trident system as well. It all comes back to the basic point. Although there might be arguments for or against having various kinds of weapons, I see no argument for having out-of-date ones.

Will the Secretary of State clarify what he said on "Panorama" about stand-off nuclear missiles for Tornado aircraft? How much has been allowed for any modernisation in the general costings to which he referred? Will he give an assurance that any sum that might be spent will not in any way jeopardise projects such as the European fighter aircraft, the new generation of tanks or the surface fleet being maintained at about 50 vessels?

We expect to maintain all our main defence commitments with the present budgetary arrangements. There is no difficulty about that. No decisions have been taken on the replacement for free fall bombs. We are examining possible options. We have allowed a generalised amount of money in our forward costings for replacement, but we cannot do anything accurately until we know broadly what the cost of the systems will be.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to update the RAF's nuclear capabilities? The tasks that it has to perform at the moment, and will have to perform in the future, are not the same as those that cruise missiles have performed in the recent past. Further, will he confirm that the USSR already has a nuclear stand-off capability for some of its aircraft?

Yes, I confirm my hon. Friend's last point. I understand that the Soviet Union has nuclear capable short-range air-to-ground missiles on its Backfire bombers. It is taking a precaution which some Opposition Members maintain we should not. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the general provision of weapon systems, as part of our nuclear deterrence, is the vital part of our defence.

Will the Secretary of State say when the decision was taken to replace the freefall bombs on the Tornado aircraft? Was that decision taken at Montebello in 1983, or later? Secondly, i n view of the answers that he has given, could he also tell the House the generalised sum involved in the defence budget for modernisation, as he calls it?

We are at far too early a stage to be able to put any definite figure on this. That is not surprising. as we do not yet know the price, the quantity or what type of missile would be available.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals concerning maritime strategy he will be taking to the Eurogroup meeting of Defence Ministers in Brussels on 25 May.

None, Sir.

I am interested to hear that reply to my question. If the Secretary of State is not considering a maritime strategy, perhaps he could pay some attention to the importance of the British merchant fleet in the development of a maritime strategy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the merchant fleet figures in his defence White Paper make depressing reading? How many more ships, and how many more British-trained merchant seamen, are we to lose before the Secretary of State acts in the national interest?

We watch trends in the British merchant fleet with considerable concern because we rely on being able to take ships from trade for military purposes from time to time. However, in spite of the steady reductions in recent years, which now appear to have levelled off, the position is that, apart from one or two specialist types, sufficient vessels would be available for any likely defence needs. We watch the matter carefully and would be worried if there were too few for our needs.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his answer that we do not have a strategy is alarming? Does he admit that unless we know how many ships we have we will not know how many we might need in any eventuality? There is great concern that the Royal Navy is being run down to a level that would be unsustainable in the event of hostilities anywhere in the world.

I should correct the impression that has grown up because of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). I did not state that we had no maritime strategy. I said that I would not be taking any proposals on such a strategy to the Eurogroup meeting, which is a very different thing. We have a well-known maritime strategy, which is part of the NATO strategy, to which the Royal Navy makes a great contribution.

Returning to the Secretary of State's answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), will the right hon. Gentleman look at the age profile of what is left of the British merchant fleet, because surely he knows that what is left is, on the whole, very old? New ships will have to be built in the 1990s because the remaining ships will not be seaworthy by then. It is simply a question whether the new ships that will be required will be built in other countries or in Britain. In the interests of his own Department, should not the Secretary of State persuade his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to wake up, pull their fingers out and save British merchant shipbuilding?

My concern is to ensure that at any time sufficient ships could be taken from trade to be used for military purposes. That is still the case today, but we watch the position carefully. We in the Ministry of Defence cannot construct merchant ships. We have to rely on their being available. We keep a close check on what is available and, as I have said, at present it is still adequate for our needs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that West German interest in our maritime fleet is great, particularly in the ability of our submarines and, in due course, Trident to attack Soviet territory, and that that is important, given the INF agreement which otherwise would limit all land-based nuclear action to taking place on German soil? Has he received representations from the West German Government to that effect?

In my discussions with the West German Government they solidly supported the provision of the British nuclear deterrent—the Polaris system as it now is, or the Trident system in the future. It is widely agreed throughout NATO that that is an extremely valuable contribution to NATO, as well as being a safeguard for our own defence. I have noticed recently with interest that Mr. Gorbachev has agreed that the British Trident system should not be included in the START negotiations.

The Secretary of State has concentrated on the number of ships. Is he not concerned about the figures in the White Paper relating to the number of cadets in training, which, in the last six years, has fallen from 4,000 to 550? That drop suggests that in the future there will not only be an insufficient number of British or, indeed, European, ships, but, more important, that there will be a dearth of British seamen capable of manning those ships and fulfilling the role that the merchant marine has carried out so valiantly in the past.

Yes, we believe that a possible shortage of British crews is a greater problem than the possible shortage of British ships. We are considering both those matters carefully and examining ways in which we could build up a reserve of crews for that purpose.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the maritime defence strategy is to keep enemy forces at arm's length and to deny them freedom of operation? Will he also tell us what plans his Department has for ordering further Trident submarines?

Of course, NATO strategy is to ensure that we have the ability to range on international waters and the high seas and to ensure that we can keep them safe for the passage of our shipping and of international shipping generally. There is no doubt that that is a prime factor in NATO strategy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the SAS in Europe.

No, Sir.

Under what and on whose authority does the SAS operate?

It has long been the policy of this Government and their predecessors not to comment on the activities of, or arrangements for, our special forces. To depart from that policy would, in my view, be against the interests not only of members of our armed forces but of British citizens who may he exposed to danger at home or abroad.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the SAS has a fine tradition of serving not only this democratically elected Government but their predecessors of a Socialist persuasion, and that its expertise and courage is held in the highest esteem, not only in this House but among the general public who will deny the whingers opposite who sell the SAS short?

I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the proficiency of our armed forces.

Surely the Minister accepts some sort of principle of democratic accountability. Does not the absence of such democratic accountability suggest that the SAS could institute a shoot-to-kill policy of its own without any control whatsoever? Is the Minister trying to claim that that is what happened in Gibraltar, or was that planned? All that the House wants to know is who planned it, who made the decision and who gave the orders. Surely we are entitled to know that.

All military operations and activities in this country or by our armed forces are ultimately under political control. I should emphasise that our soldiers are highly trained to operate within the law and according to strict rules.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure that his Department uses the services of the insurance industry so as to mitigate its annual losses in equipment and facilities.

The Ministry of Defence does not generally insure against the risk of any loss to property, buildings or equipment. Over the long term, the cost of insurance should exceed average losses. Although the risks are potentially very large and widely distributed, they can never produce losses maturing in any one year so as to have a significant effect on the overall financial position of the Exchequer.

Will my hon. Friend give the House the figures for the loss, particularly by fire damage, to stores and buildings at the Ministry of Defence over the past five years? Can he estimate the likely cost of the fire damage to the central ordnance depot at Donnington, the second fire that it has endured within the past two years? Does he not think that the time has come for some of those risks to be borne by the insurance industry?

The answer to the first question is, over the past five years, approximately £152 million. The answer to the second question is that it is still too early to provide estimates, but the figure is probably in excess of £100 million. The answer to the third question is no. We have no plans to insure specific losses, but we have plans to extend the principle of insurance where the insurance industry can offer a service, such as settling claims. We do that with third party motor vehicle insurance and civilian employers' liability.

What is the position about aircraft such as the Tornado that was recently lost in Germany? Will the Minister reconsider the arrangements, particularly in relation to relatives of the people who were killed.

We always regret aircraft accidents. The aircraft accident trend is down. Last year was the best year on record for the number of aircraft lost. The service men who lose their lives or who are injured are covered by the armed forces pension scheme. If negligence is involved then, following the repeal of section 10 of the 1947 Act, they can claim against the Ministry of Defence.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about former civil servants and members of Her Majesty's forces accepting outside appointments with defence contractors.

The Government have received the House of Commons Defence Committee's report on the acceptance of appointments in commerce and industry by members of the armed forces and officials of the Ministry of Defence. As usual, a Government response will be made to this report in due course.

Can the Minister explain why the Ministry of Defence hindered the inquiry of the Select Committee on Defence into the increasing number of civil servants and military staff who have taken up cosy, lucrative positions with commercial defence weapon contractors? When will the Government come clean and lift this shroud of secrecy on a matter that is of legitimate public concern?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand when I say that it would not be right for me to anticipate the Government's response to the report, which, of course, we are taking very seriously.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the benefits of Mr. Levene's appointment is that it will try to bring to an end some of the cosy relationships that existed in the past? Is my hon. Friend aware that the next time I get a letter from an admiral on behalf of a defence company it will go straight into the wastepaper basket?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many benefits in the more competitive approach of defence procurement that we have introduced. I hope he will accept that, on the face of it, it would not seem very sensible completely to deny to the country and, indeed, to industry and commerce, the benefit of people who have experience of the armed forces.

Does the Under-Secretary of State accept that the Opposition have grave misgivings about the relationship to major defence contractors not only of service men and ex-civil servants but of ex-Cabinet Ministers such as the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)? When will the Government draw up a more effective code of conduct so that politicians do not step out of jobs in which they give contracts into companies where they place contracts?

I shall confine my answer to the points arising from the question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take very seriously the issues about which he speaks. We try to take the greatest care to avoid approving any appointment that could give rise to a suggestion of a conflict of interests. We shall be replying to the report in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to maximise weapon purchasing economy through collaborative ventures with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

In order to derive maximum benefit by co-operation, we play a full role in the relevant multilateral forums—essentially the Conference of International Armament Directors, CNAD, and the Independent European Programme Group, IEPG—and in our various bilateral contacts.

I am grateful for that answer, but I am not exactly clear about what it means. Has any progress whatever been made in the last five years or so?

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we all get perplexed by these numerous initials by which the MOD confuses things. I am glad to say that there has been substantial progress. We very much recognise that major benefits of increased collaboration accrue not only from the reduced costs to each country of developing complex weapons systems, but from lower unit production costs that result from longer production runs.

Will the Minister examine carefully the respective economies arising from our purchase of AWACS from Boeing? Will he give some clear information to the House about the nature of this contract and tell us why we have not obtained £80 million-worth of firm orders to offset purchases in excess of £1·5 billion? What economies will accrue to the United Kingdom in relation to that particular collaborative purchase, and when will the Ministry of Defence get off its backside and ensure that British industry gets its fair contractural share of offset purchases?

The purchase of the AWACS from Boeing is not part of a collaborative programme but is simply the purchase of equipment produced overseas. It carries a substantial offset of 130 per cent. of the cost. We have absolute confidence that on this occasion, as previously, Boeing will fulfil its obligations under that agreement.

I put it to my hon. Friend that deals of the Goalkeeper/Rolls-Royce type, in which effectively the swap of one type of equipment for another takes place, offer the same benefits as collaboration in terms of longer production runs, and so on, but without all the bureaucracy that so besets collaborative ventures—especially smaller ones.

My hon. Friend is right. There are other ways of obtaining the benefits of longer production runs and of enjoying co-operation among NATO allies than through collaboration. Reciprocal purchasing is clearly one of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about conventional arms levels.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about conventional arms levels.

I have regular discussions with my NATO colleagues on conventional arms levels, both in terms of our approach to conventional arms control and the conventional defence improvements exercise.

Does the Secretary of State for Defence accept in principle that any reduction in conventional arms should be on the basis of reciprocity. In other words, those weapons in which the West has superiority should be bargained against those weapons in which the Soviets have superiority. Is the Minister prepared to accept that principle?

Not exactly. The objective in conventional arms reductions is to work down the considerable imbalance which exists. We are clear that, for that purpose, asymmetrical reductions will be necessary.

Will the Secretary of State for Defence tell the House whether NATO has now agreed upon its negotiating position in respect of the conventional arms stability talks? Can he say, in particular, whether it has been agreed by both the British Government and NATO that ground-based attack aircraft will be included in those negotiations? If they are not, it will make a mockery of the talks.

In the negotiations we have made it plain that the proposed talks are to be about conventional armed forces, including all conventional forces and equipment based on land, regardless of what other capability they may have. We have explicitly stated that nuclear and chemical weapons, together with naval forces, are excluded. There is no need to single out for inclusion any one type of conventional armament solely because it has the additional capability to deliver nuclear or chemical weapons.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be perfectly possible for the Soviet Union to offer to withdraw Warsaw pact forces, but not the equipment, which would make little actual difference to the Soviets' fighting capability on the central front?

I agree. We believe that the conventional imbalance can be redressed through a set of measures including reductions, limitations, redeployment provisions and related measures, as well as the establishment of equal ceilings. That outcome will require highly asymmetrical reductions by the East and will entail, for example, the elimination from Europe of tens of thousands of Warsaw pact weapons relevant to surprise attack—among them, tanks and artillery pieces.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that before the last general election the Labour party was exhorting us to strengthen our conventional weapons? Now it seems to be suggesting that we should weaken our conventional weapons. The only inference to be drawn from that is that the Labour party is interested, not in the defence of Britain, but in her disarmament?

As my hon. Friend points out, many strange things were said by the Labour party before the last election, and the ones that he has mentioned are certainly among them. I think, however, that even those are not as strange as the doctrine that we should have out-of-date weapons, to which the Labour party seems now to attach itself.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed arrangements for the use of merchant shipping in time of war.

Arrangements for the use of merchant shipping in time of war are kept under regular review.

Has not the Government's wilful neglect of their merchant shipping fleet and merchant seamen severely reduced the country's capacity to defend itself'?

No, Sir. We judge that there are sufficient British and British-dependent territory ships for the needs of the British forces. In the Merchant Shipping Bill we have included powers to assist with the training of merchant seamen, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, provision for a Merchant Navy reserve.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the degree of support in the country for the sentiments that she expressed in her speech to the Church of Scotland? Would she care to take this opportunity to reassert that one of the principles of the Christian ethic is personal and individual responsibility, and that some of the other principles, such as care, compassion and tolerance, can be, and are, shared by people of all political parties—including the party to which she and I are proud to belong?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. It was, of course, an expression of personal beliefs and views—[Interruption.] On that occasion I agreed with what my hon. Friend said. As I pointed out at the time, there may be others who disagree, but it is a mark of Christian manners and courtesy to do so in a very mannerly way.

Will the Prime Minister now unfreeze child benefit and restore the 70p cuts that she has made in the past two years?

Child benefit is reviewed each year. This year we chose to give a great deal more to children in families who had low earnings, so that we helped those who needed it most.

It did not make up for the child benefit cuts. When I heard the Prime Minister on Saturday saying that she considered that children were "a precious trust", I wondered whether she meant it in practice. Now I know that she does not. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading the speech. I do not believe—and it is a personal view—that one discharges all one's duties by casting them off on to the state.

The Prime Minister has cut child benefit. She has stopped free school meals. She has ended single payments. Can she tell us which passage of the Bible inspired her to do all that? Could it have been Matthew 27:24,

"Pilate … took water, and washed his hands"

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman debases everything—[Interruption.]—that he and I both probably believe in if we try to exchange quotations across the Chamber. I made it perfectly clear in that speech that we simply cannot delegate the exercise of mercy and generosity to others, and that therefore there is a very important place both for help through the state—which we operate—and personal help and personal responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman asked me personally. Perhaps he will kindly look at the amount which I have voluntarily forgone from my salary over the past nine years.[Interruption.]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the international lead that she has given in arranging for the historic meeting between British and Soviet scientists at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down in my constituency? Will she join me in praising the work of the scientific and industrial civil servants, without whose dedication and loyalty our role in those talks would not be so important?

Yes, I will gladly do that. As my hon. Friend is aware, there were visits from this country and from our allies to the Soviet Union with regard to chemical weapons. We have no chemical weapons in this country. We gave them up a very long time ago, and this is a return visit under the agreement that we have to inspect each other's premises.

In view of the importance of a revising second Chamber for this Parliament, does the Prime Minister accept that it is now time to look at the proposals of Lord Home in 1978 for an elected and nominated second Chamber? The reform of the other place is now right. If we are to have a sensible revisory process, it requires a change in the voting membership of the other place.

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the community charge Bill for Scotland went through their Lordships' House completely, and was revised in their Lordships' House, before the election. We put in our manifesto plans that went into far greater detail because a similar Bill had already been through their Lordships' House. I believe that there is no such difficulty as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I believe that yesterday we won on the argument—[Interruption.]

Order. It takes up a great deal of time to have so much noise.

During the debate 75 Cross Benchers were present and voting; 43 Cross Benchers supported the Government and 32 voted with the Labour Opposition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SAS regiment based in Herefordshire has served this country with quiet distinction, not least for the past 13 years, during which it has been deployed in Northern Ireland? Does she agree that that success has been due largely to the anonymity with which it has worked? Does she not agree, therefore, that it is highly irresponsible for hon. Members to seek to name names, not least because of the jeopardy in which soldiers' families would be placed?

Yes, I join my hon. Friend in paying warm tribute to the work of the SAS. I agree with him that for it to continue to protect our security it must not be discussed in detail in this House or anywhere else.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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

Has the Prime Minister had time to glimpse at "Just Sharing", one of the books that was presented to her by the Church of Scotland on Saturday? Does she agree with its conclusion that the reality of one and a half million men, women and children who live on the borders of poverty represents a sick society in Scotland? In view of the charity which the Church demonstrated by listening to the right hon. Lady's speech, will she respond by showing some humility and offering a real challenge to poverty, if only because pious words do not always represent Christian values, but positive policies and a caring approach in a meaningful sense often do?

I was glad to receive the pamphlet "Just Sharing". It gives me an opportunity to point out that because of the Government's policies there is far more available for sharing among those who need it.

In condemning the violence at Wembley at last Saturday's match between England and Scotland, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time the Football League and the Football Association stopped pussyfooting on the members only issue and copied the scheme at Luton where, during two full seasons and 80 matches, there was not one single arrest inside or outside the ground?

Once again we had violence and hooliganism, which disfigures football and will make it much more difficult to get back to playing in Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend that the scheme he introduced to Luton, which was members only and no away spectators, is excellent and has brought families back to football, to their great joy. I wish that more would follow his excellent example.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that in her speech to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at the weekend she attempted to reconcile the creed of greed with morality? In that speech she also pointed out that "each one counts." Can she confirm that yesterday that was the moral imperative uppermost in her mind when she whipped in hundreds of backwoodsmen in the House of Lords to get her over her troubles on the poll tax?

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him about the premise which underlines his question. [Interruption.] I do not believe that people, such as nurses and doctors, are exercising the creed of greed when they ask for more.

Does not the standing ovation which the Royal College of Nursing gave to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services show that the angels believe the NHS is safe in her hands?

Yes, Sir. Again, because of the policies carried out by this Government, there is more money to distribute for social services and far more money to distribute to the Health Service. The reception that my right hon. Friend had yesterday was well deserved.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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

Since 1979, during the nine years that the Prime Minister has been in power, homelessness has doubled in Britain. Can she tell us why?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment he will find an explanation. First, the population of working age is about 1⅓ million more than it was 10 years ago. Secondly, unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend set out in his speech, the number of broken marriages and single parents greatly increases the need for housing. Therefore, more houses are having to be provided for approximately the same number of people.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Scotland are delighted to see her coming to the Church of Scotland General Assembly because it is a pleasant change to have a leader who is a practising Christian, who believes in what she is doing and who clearly demonstrates this every day of the week, not least by the courage with which she carries out her duties?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Opposition would not have attacked what I said so vigorously if it had not been as well received as it was.

Does the Prime Minister remember that when I asked her last month about the Church of Scotland report on poverty in Scotland, showing that 31 per cent. of the population were living at or near the margins of poverty, she said she had not seen the report? Does she recognise that that was the report handed to her by the Moderator at the end of her interesting speech, and does she now accept that the Government have a direct and unavoidable duty to do something about it?

As I have indicated many times in the past few minutes, because of the policies of this Government there is more money available to share, there are more houses, there is a better Health Service and there are better salaries; in fact, life is better off all round, precisely because of our policies.

Given the conviction yesterday of Mr. Martin Chilvers, will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the recommendations of the Security Commission report—published three years ago—to introduce polygraph testing into GCHQ and other establishments will be implemented?

As my right hon. Friend indicated in a reply, which I think was given some time during April, and as my hon. Friend is aware, we have asked for a scientific assessment of the phase 1 experiment on the polygraph. However, there are different views from the scientific body as to how useful that is. When the report has come in, we shall assess it and make an announcement to the House.