asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated combined cost over the next five years of the Tornado procurement for the Royal Air Force and the Trident missile submarine system for the Royal Navy.

The total cost to the United Kingdom of an order of 220 production GR mark Is and 165 production F2s would be £4,270 million by the end of the decade. So far as a successor to Polaris is concerned, I hope to make a statement at 3.30 this afternoon.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, with a quarter of a million boys and girls on the dole, that would be an extravagant and grotesque waste of public money? The Government would be better employed building the industrial power of this country rather than wasting their time on futile aspirations to nuclear power.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Tornado or to the successor system. Both the previous Government and this are of the view that the Tornado aircraft is a necessary improvement to our RAF capability.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the re-equipment of the Royal Air Force is an essential precondition of the employment of the young people to whom the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) refers and, indeed, to the security of the country? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that not only is this programme fulfilled at the earliest opportunity but that there is no delay, particularly in bringing the F2 into production? It is essential for our northern approach defences.

I agree with my hon. Friend that for our young people to have a safe and peaceful world in which to live it is necessary for us to have adequate defences to ensure that security.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise the fact that the RAF welcomes the introduction of the Tornado in both versions with a great deal of expectation? Is he bringing pressure to bear on our colleagues in NATO with a view to selling either or both versions of the Tornado, in due course, to those who may wish to buy it?

Once we have the necessary numbers in our Air Force and those of our allies, there is no doubt that there will be markets for this aircraft overseas. That is a matter to which, with our allies, we shall look.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence why the gliding instructor's badge is not included in the list of official Royal Air Force flying badges.

Official Royal Air Force flying badges denote qualifications and skills which are directly related to the operational role of the Royal Air Force. They are sparingly issued and generally involve long and arduous training. The gliding instructor's badge is an Air Training Corps qualification which, important as it is in its own right, does not fall into this category. This implies no lack of appreciation of the efforts of those members of the Royal Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve who devote a great deal of their spare time to becoming qualified gliding instructors and to furthering the work of the Air Training Corps.

I thank my hon. Friend for that clear explanation. Will he consider reviewing the situation that now exists, where RAF flying badges can be worn on the pullovers of Regular and Reserve officers whereas the air cadet gliding instructor badge cannot be so worn? This would go a long way towards removing the difficulties that exist over this badge.

As my hon. Friend knows, the new regulations concerning the heavy duty jersey came into effect only on 1 May. After we have seen how they have worked for a little longer, I shall look at this matter again.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the pay, allowances and conditions of the British forces now stationed in the New Hebrides.

Our forces now serving in the New Hebrides are receiving their normal pay and allowances, including local overseas allowance. About 150 men are accommodated in a school, making use of both classrooms and dormitories; and about 100 men are occupying tented accommodation. They are all regarded as being on field conditions and do not therefore pay the normal food and accommodation charges.

Since the purpose of these forces is to act—when they act—in concert with the French, the other condominii of the condominium, may we have an absolute assurance that the pay, conditions and allowances are in no way inferior to those of the French forces alongside which our forces are expected to operate?

I imagine that the pay of our forces might be above that paid to the French forces, which are not in the New Hebrides at the moment but in the general area. The British forces are paid British rates of pay. I am sure that that is right.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Marines are ideally suited for this peace-keeping role in view of their vast experience in similar overseas stations and in Northern Ireland? Is not the present situation further evidence of their ability to introduce stability into an area of political tension? Will the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State today send a signal to all Royal Marines in the New Hebrides assuring them of our support and complimenting them on the good job that they are doing under difficult circumstances?

I am glad to acknowledge such remarks from someone whose knowledge of the Royal Marines is well known. The Royal Marines formed the spearhead battalion at the appropriate time. We are delighted that they fulfilled their role so effectively.

Is there any truth in the rumour that the Royal Marilnes were asked to contribute towards the cost of getting to this station?

There is no truth in that rumour. However, it is clear that loyalties to Services and to regiments are playing a great part in Question Time proceedings.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to inform the public nationally why he has decided to station cruise missiles in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

I have done my best, both within this House and outside over many months, to explain to the nation why it is so vital for the defence of this country that these missiles should be based here. As I have already announced, I am taking special steps to make available further detailed information to those living in the neighbourhood of the two selected bases.

In light of the campaign spearheaded by the Moscow faction in the Labour Party, which is well illustrated by Question No. 5, will my right hon. Friend stress that an effective deterrent is the best guarantee of Britain's peace? Does he agree that if the Afghans had had cruise missiles they would not have been invaded by the Russians?

I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the effectiveness of a deterrent strategy. That is our first responsibility in order to prevent a war from breaking out. If the Afghans had had that type of armament perhaps the history in that part of the world would be different. Nevertheless, we still hope that there will be a withdrawal by the Russian forces at some stage so that stability can be restored to south-west Asia.

What are the right hon. Gentleman and the Government doing to secure negotiations on a reduction in nuclear forces with the USSR prior to the deployment of the cruise missile?

When NATO announced its decision in December there was an arms control element to the agreement. The response so far from the Soviet Union has been extremely disappointing, although there are some signs that its attitude is altering. The United States proposes to withdraw 1,000 warheads unilaterally. That process is already in train. It has met with no remotely comparable response from the other side of the Iron Curtain.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread acceptance in his constituency, in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies that it is right for the protection of our land and the Alliance that the missiles should be stationed here?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. However reluctant it might be, there is widespread acceptance of the decision on the basis that, for security reasons, it is necessary.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the stationing of cruise missiles here means that Britain will be made a primary target in any war, even if it is not of our making? How on earth can that represent any defence for the people of this country? Surely it puts them in a more dangerous position.

We have been in that position for many years, under Governments of both parties. Only in alliance with our neighbours and allies can we secure our own and their security and freedom. The Alliance agreed unanimously that the modernisation programme was necessary. The Government also take that view. I have proposed and defended it in the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware how much the people of Newbury appreciate his offer to visit the town before the end of the month to explain the reasons for the missiles being based nearby? Does he expect to have available the further literature which the Ministry promised?

I shall be pleased to attend a meeting in my hon. Friend's constituency before the end of the month. I confirm that the further information will be available by then.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that no sane man or woman wants the cruise missiles to be located here? Is he aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) was unsatisfactory? Surely he must have noted that, during his visit to Moscow, Chancellor Schmidt persuaded Mr. Brezhnev to agree to negotiations in principle—which he was unwilling to do before NATO's decision last December to modernise. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to show the same interest in progress on arms control and disarmament?

There can be no doubt that this Government and hon. Members in all parts of the House would welcome any progress towards arms control. In so far as there is an indication of change, that is being discussed by the Alliance and particularly by the United States, which is affected principally by the negotiations. We wish to make the greatest response possible. The response that I made earlier was a fairly clear indication of the steps taken within the Alliance to make positive moves towards arms control.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet the Defence Minister of the Soviet Union to discuss the possibility of suspending the decision to allow cruise missiles to be sited in the United Kingdom.

The United States, with the support of its allies, has repeatedly offered to negotiate with the Soviet Union on the limitation of long-range theatre nuclear systems on both sides. I welcome the signs—such as they are—that the Soviet Union may be prepared to reconsider its earlier refusal to enter such negotiations. However, despite these signs the Soviet Union continues to deploy new and sophisticated theatre nuclear weapons at an increasing rate, thus widening even further the imbalance in its favour. There can be no question of unilaterally suspending the NATO decision on cruise missiles as this would remove any incentive for the Soviet Union to negotiate seriously.

Has not the Secretary of State changed his ground a little since the last time we exchanged expressions about these matters because he said then that the Soviet Union had not moved? Has not the Soviet Union moved its position several times in response to requests for talks? Therefore, were not the talks which Chancellor Schmidt had in Moscow fruitful? Should we not be trying our utmost to follow his example, instead of boycotting the Olympic Games?

Frankly, we shall have to wait to see what proposals, if any, the Soviet Union makes. I welcome the signs, such as they are, but they have yet to be tested. I have indicated the Government's positive attitude on the important issue of arms control, and the action taken by the United States.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in the House, and in the country generally, regard his attitude and the attitude of the official Opposition spokesmen on this matter as being much more likely to secure a balanced reduction in nuclear weapons than the obsession with unilaterial nuclear disarmament which we see among Opposition Members below the Gangway?

I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend.

Does not the Secretary of State recognise the MX missile, the Tornado and the commitment to 3 per cent. per annum up to 1985? Surely this is not a one-sided issue.

No, it is not. Our 3 per cent. is matched by something like 4 per cent.—perhaps more—on the other side. They have been sustaining a programme of new weapon production for many years in all sectors on the other side of the Iron Curtain, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It has never been, and is not, any part of our strategy to seek to match the Soviet Union weapon for weapon. What we and our allies require is a defensive capability that is adequate to deter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to announce his proposals for the modernisation and extension of HMS "Fisgard", Torpoint; and if he will make a statement.

An announcement will be made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy as soon as possible.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department recognises the contribution that HMS "Fisgard" makes, both in the training of 600 artificers each year and in the local economy of South-East Cornwall in relation to defence? Does my hon. Friend take on board the fact that the delay is causing anxiety? Is he aware that if we were to lose HMS "Fisgard" it would be a blow to the area?

Yes. The contribution that HMS "Fisgard" is making is well appreciated, as is the close interest of my hon. Friend in this matter. I can assure him that a decision will be announced as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will consider purchasing the British Airways fleet of VC10s which are shortly to be replaced in civil use so that they may be available to augment the Royal Air Force existing VC10 transport and tanker aircraft.

We have no plans to make an offer for these aircraft for use in the RAF's transport or tanker fleets.

Does my hon. Friend accept that this is a one-off opportunity to acquire for scrap prices aircraft which would have a role for another 15 or 20 years in the RAF? Should not they be bought now while they are available and, if need be, kept until funds are available to bring them into service?

My hon. Friend will know that the problem at the moment is one of not having the resources available to make the acquisition in the first place and not having the manpower resources available to operate the aircraft.

If my hon. Friend's Department is unable to purchase these aircraft, can he say how the requisitioned aircraft from civil air transport companies which may be required under section 10 of the Civil Aviation Act will be crewed? Will the crews be subject to RAF discipline and if not, will he look into this matter as a matter of urgency?

This matter is being currently studied.

The question that I was about to ask the Minister has just been asked by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). [Laughter.]—At least I was honest about it, Mr. Speaker. However, the Minister's reply was extremely unsatisfactory. He has been playing a dead bat on this issue for weeks. Does he intend to sign up British Airways pilots?

I have just told my hon. Friend that this issue is being studied, and it is being studied.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his intentions on the replacement of Polaris.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the Polaris weapons system.

I hope to make a statement later this afternoon.

rose—

rose—

Order. If the hon. Members are prepared to wait, I shall call them on the statement, probably. But that "probably" disappears if the hon. Members wish to pursue it now.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department makes to ensure that there are adequate supplies of the raw materials required for the manufacture of weapons necessary for national defence.

This question is primarily one for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Industry. The Government announced on 19 May that they would consult industry and others about the desirability of measures to improve continuity and security of supplies. The Ministry of Defence looks to its suppliers to take responsibility for maintaining and protecting their supplies. It normally only takes this responsibility itself where it manufactures its own weapons and equipment.

Does the Minister think that steel output of 15 million tons a year is sufficient for a modern industrial State with a strategic defence capability and responsibility? Has the Minister noted that the new British Steel Corporation chairman is, by the terms of his contract and the controversy surrounding it, almost unsackable and, therefore, could depress our annual tonnage target from 15 million tons, to, perhaps, 12 million tons a year? Will we have enough steel for example, for the new Challenger tank?

There is no doubt that the supply and availability of steel will be sufficient to meet our defence commitments and, though this is primarily a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, I understand that the British Steel Corporation will have a mothballed capacity of up to 5 million tons. That, obviously, would meet any likely defence requirement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been any discussions, in the context of the NATO Alliance, or bilaterally, with the French Defence Minister concerning the recent development by France of the neutron bomb.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, within the context of NATO defence, he proposes to have any discussions with the French Defence Minister regarding proposals to produce the neutron bomb.

There have not been any discussions bilaterally or within NATO of the French policy towards the development of enhanced radiation—reduced blast nuclear warheads nor are any such discussions planned.

Does the Secretary of State realise that this so-called tactical weapon is designed to destroy human beings and leave buildings intact? It is almost the ultimate in Tory materialism. Will the Secretary of State assure us that under no circumstances will he consider the manufacture or use of this weapon? It has no part to play in deterring war. Does he agree that it would merely represent a statement that we would prosecute war to the detriment of mankind and the preservation of buildings?

I think that the hon. Gentleman's description of the nature of this weapon would also apply to the chemical warfare capability possessed by the Soviet Union. That is something that worries us a great deal. The purpose of the weapon, clearly, is to enhance the French deterrent capability. We have no plans at present to engage in the manufacture of weapons of that kind.

Will the Secretary of State consider talking to the French so as to stop them from manufacturing this weapon? The weapon uses enriched radiation and we know that people are still suffering from the effects of the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This weapon will produce genetic and cancerous effects on the people who come into contact with it. Will the Secretary of State take steps to prevent this madness in the world?

I have no plans to engage in the sort of consultation that the hon. Gentleman invites me to have. However, I am quite certain that the thought behind the possibility referred to is to increase deterrence. That is what it is about. There are unattractive weapons on the other side of the Iron Curtain but we do not hear so many complaints about them. Those weapons have characteristics which are as unattractive—if not more unattractive—as the characteristics referred to in the hon. Gentleman's question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are strong military arguments in favour of the production and deployment of the so-called neutron bomb? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that his Department is giving the fullest consideration to the question whether this would improve our strength? In view of the costs would he also assure us that he will not altogether reject, within the limits of other international agreements, possible co-operation with France in this matter?

It would be possible to make out a military case for this weapon on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend. But I have to tell him that at the moment that possibility is not under consideration by me.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most disturbing aspects of his answer is that he has not had discussions with French politicians about the neutron bomb, particularly in view of the fact that French military leaders co-operate at every level with British and NATO military leaders as though France was a member of NATO? The fact that France has withdrawn politically from NATO has not halted military co-operation. For the Secretary of State to say—

Order. Question Time is for asking questions, not for making an argument. If the hon. Member asks his question briefly, everyone will be happy.

Is it not right that we should debate with French political leaders in issues that military leaders are discussing and debating? Or does it mean that military leaders and not political leaders are running NATO?

The hon. Gentleman knows that France has a special position in relation to NATO. The point of this weapon, and the possibility of France producing it—thought I understand that no decision has yet been reached—is to increase France's deterrent capability.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the introduction of the Challenger to our tank defence system, may I ask him, in the light of our appalling follow-up ability in the event of a conventional war—which limits us to a very short period of conventional defence—to review his position with regard to the neutron bomb and to go ahead and develop it?

I note what my hon. Friend says. As I have indicated, I am not doing that at present, but I take note of his point of view.

Is not the position of the French on this matter somewhat similar to their attitude in the Common Market—that they expect to be defended but are not prepared to defend anyone else?

I think that is less than fair to the French, who make a substantial effort in regard to defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "On their own."] Well, on their own, but also in alliance with their neighbours. There is close contact between France and her neighbours, and certainly between France and the United Kingdom and France and the Federal Republic. She makes a major effort in regard to the Navy, Army and Air Force, as well as in the nuclear sphere, and it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the significance of the French contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his defence counterparts within NATO and the Western Alliance concerning the military security of the Persian Gulf area; and if he will make a statement.

NATO Defence Ministers discussed the security situation in the south-west Asia area at the spring meet ing of the NATO defence planning committee. Ministers agreed that the stability of this region, and the secure supply of essential commodities from it, were of crucial importance to the West.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the creation of a Western Alliance rapid deployment force is vitally necessary, and should be treated as a matter of urgency, if our security in the Gulf area is to be safeguarded? Does he further agree that such a force is useless unless it has the necessary facilities with which, and in which, to operate? Is he able to tell the House anything about the progress on this urgent matter?

We are making some progress, based on what I wrote in the White Paper. The basis of the RDF is the United States forces. We have no plans to reopen any bases in that part of the world, but we would like to be able to have a greater capability and flexibility than now in support of the United States if a situation developed which required that kind of assistance. We intend to increase flexibility by stockpiling various items of equipment so that we could move more quickly, should the circumstances require it. I think that at present that extra capability is of a modest character, but at any rate I am sure that it is a move in the right direction.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Powers in the Gulf States have shown a marked reluctance to allow any signficant increase in bases by the Western or NATO Powers within their area? Should not we pay more attention to them, as they feel that there would be greater stability in the area if we, the Americans and the Russians kept out, rather than dabbling our toes in their little pool.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. As I indicated in my last supplementary answer, we have at present no plans to re-establish any bases in that area. I am sure that it will be in cooperation with the countries in that area that stability can most rapidly be restored.

Is not it a sad commentary on the Western Alliance today that eight months after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Afghan resistance fighters have very few weapons? Is my right hon. Friend aware that 80 per cent. of their weapons are Lee Enfield rifles? Furthermore, there is a critical shortage of ·303 ammunition. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government would be willing to entertain a request from the Afghan resistance fighters for small arms weapons and anti-tank and anti-air missiles?

That is a specific question, but I can say that the whole situation in Afghanistan is under constant review with our allies. My hon. Friend says that, in his view, the response has not been altogether adequate, and that is a matter of opinion. We remain extremely concerned about the fighting which continues in that part of the world and the resistance being put up by the Afghans. We are in the closest touch with the United States, our other allies, as well as friends around the world, and are keeping the situation under the closest review.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether the story which emerged last week—that the beef from the Western European countries has got into Afghanistan—has been properly established? Can he also say how much has arrived there?

I am afraid that I have no information on that matter, and I would require notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce a decision about the replacement for the Sea King Helicopter.

Studies to define a replacement for the Sea King Helicopter are continuing. My right hon. Friend does not expect to be in a position to announce a decision for some months.

I thank my hon. Friend for that non-reply. Can be assure the House that when a decision is taken, it will be in relation to a helicopter which is British-designed and British-built?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I hope that that decision will be on the lines that he suggested. It is obviously important for us to maintain a viable helicopter industry in the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister's non-reply mean that design faults have been encountered? Why cannot the Minister at least say when project definition will be complete? What prospects are there for undertaking full development in collaboration with Italy?

The non-reply to which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend referred simply relates to the fact that the studies are continuing. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience, there comes a time when it is appropriate to make an announcement, but that time has not yet been reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the siting of cruise missiles since his recent statement.

Since my statement on 17 June, I have received about 75 letters and a small number of petitions about the basing of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom, of which some 10 have referred specifically to the particular sites chosen.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the siting of these weapons in the United Kingdom affects areas much wider than the bases themselves? Is he also aware that many people believe that these are essentially offensive weapons which invite a pre-emptive strike and that they are, therefore, very dangerous indeed? Will he show rather more alacrity in getting to grips with the offer made by the Russians to discuss theatre nuclear weapons without preconditions?

I readily accept that the implication of the decision on basing goes outside the confines of the constituency or immediate neighbourhood where the bases are located. I have already taken a number of opportunities to explain the reasons for that decision, and I shall take further opportunities next week and no doubt subsequently. On the important subject of arms control, as I think I indicated in earlier answers, I believe that we have taken a much more positive line—and our United States allies have taken very positive steps in this area—which have not yet begun to be matched by anything which has happened on the Soviet Union side. It may be that there will be a change of attitude, but that remains to be seen.

If we decline to update our defences, will it be more or less likely that the Russians will agree to some measure of disarmament?

I do not have the slightest doubt that the decision to go ahead with the cruise missiles and Pershing Its will likely prove to be a cause of bringing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. From that point of view alone, it is entirely right that we should adhere to the decision that we took.

Is not the siting of the cruise missiles an irrelevance? Is it not a fact that cruise missiles make this country neither more nor less a nuclear target than it has been for the last 30 years? Does not that make it all the more important for the Government to tackle seriously the question of getting down to negotiations in the three years which lie ahead?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's earlier comment. Of course, the basic decision is one of great moment for people in the immediate neighbourhood and the area around, but from the point of view of the United Kingdom generally, I agree with what he has said. With regard to the other matters, as I have said already, we are doing our best.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the present living conditions of troops on anti-illegal entry patrol in Hong Kong.

I believe that those living conditions are reasonable, bearing in mind the operational tasks.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. May I assure him that the hazardous and exacting nature of that duty takes a lot out of those concerned? Will he further consider the matter with a view to making life more tolerable for those involved?

I agree that a tough, disagreeable, but essential job is carried out by those troops. I shall see whether any further improvements can be made—and some are being made now. If we take into consideration the fact that they are living under field conditions, the position is not too bad. There is no great reluctance among troops about being posted to Hong Kong.

Will my hon. Friend maintain a continuing review of the living conditions of those troops facing the most difficult task of all, namely, those in Northern Ireland?

Yes, indeed. Again, improvements are being carried out there—although that question is a little distant from the question about Hong Kong.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many vessels of the Royal Navy, designed for minesweeping and mine counter-measure purposes, are currently in service; and how many he expects to be in service in 1983.

A total of 34 mine counter-measure vessels are currently in service. On the basis of present orders one VT2 hovercraft—for MCM support duties—and four more HUNTs will have been added by the end of 1983. Four TON class vessels will by then have paid off. As the Defence White Paper said, we also plan to introduce a new class of mine-sweeping trawlers.

Does the Minister agree that the mine-sweeping and mine countermeasure roles should be afforded a much higher priority than that now given to larger and more costly vessels, including Trident?

The mine-sweeping role is extremely important. As the hon. Gentleman has said, all urgent needs must be ranked in an appropriate order of priorities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Soviet Union has a large and formidable stock of mines and an equally formidable mine-laying capability? Will he raise this issue in NATO circles to ensure that the approaches are adequately protected with a sufficient fleet of mine-sweepers and mine-hunters?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy will have noted what my hon. Friend has said. We shall take an early opportunity to raise that matter in NATO circles.

Will the Minister say from where the new vessels will come? Is he aware that in the past we have suggested that the Government should use old, but active and good, vessels that are no longer fishing at sea? I refer to vessels such as the "Arctic Galliard" and the "Arctic Buccaneer", presently in Hull.

I am aware of the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman in the past about the use of the vessels that he has described. He will be aware that it is not simply a question of the capital costs of acquiring such vessels, but whether their lifetime costs and the costs of fitting various specialist pieces of equipment to them in service will necessarily provide the best bargain for the defence forces.

Are there enough mine-sweepers for the security of the Straits of Hormuz? If necessary, will the Government consider transferring British or allied mine-sweepers to the sultanate of Oman?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. We shall consider that suggestion in the light of possible redeployment outside the NATO area.

Because the need for MCMVs is so urgent, will the Minister bear in mind the urgings of my hon. Friends about looking more urgently to mine-sweeping trawlers and, preferably—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) said—looking to those trawlers that are now laid up at Humberside?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being given urgent consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the costs to Great Britain of the installation of the cruise defence system.

As I made clear to the House on 17 June, the total cost to the United Kingdom of the whole modernisation programme throughout the Alliance will be about £16 million.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in answer to Question No. 15 the Minister said that the installation of cruise missiles in Britain may persuade the Soviet Union to come to the negotiating table to talk about nuclear weapon reductions? Will he give an assurance that Britain will he represented at those discussions? Will Britain have the freedom unilaterally to negotiate with the Soviet Union about the withdrawal of cruise missiles from this country?

Any consultations would be carried out in conjunction with all our allies, especially the United States. This is not the moment to embark upon any unilateral move.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place within the context of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Alliance with the French Defence Minister concerning the testing of the French neutron bomb; or if any bilateral discussions have taken place.

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans).

May I remind the Secretary of State and the House about a petition that attracted more than 250,000 signatures some time ago, from people in Britain who were apprehensive about the Government of that time developing the neutron bomb? Will he convey those apprehensions to the French Government, and reconsider his decision to discuss the matter with them?

I note the hon. Lady's remarks. As I said earlier, I am sure that the French are thinking about the possibility of that weapon in the context of increasing their deterrent capability.