asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the representations he has received regarding the proposed purchase of Trident missile systems.

I have received some 70 letters and two petitions since 15 July when I announced the Government's decision to acquire the Trident missile system.

Do not the mole leaks from the Treasury indicate that there must be cuts in defence expenditure? Was not that view massively endorsed at the excellent demonstration last Sunday in Trafalgar Square? Is it not disgraceful that the Government are still contemplating spending a massive sum of money on Trident while at the same time announcing cuts in council house building programmes? Is it not time that the Government put people's homes before nuclear weapons

The leak demonstrated nothing of the sort. As I indicated immediately that it occurred, no decisions have been taken. Routine discussions within the Government are taking place, and in due course announcements will be made. We shall increase our defence expenditure. We shall maintain our deterrent capability, both nuclear and conventional.

Is it not regrettable that, following the shambles at the recent Labour Party conference in Blackpool, Labour Members should breach the traditional long-standing bipartisan approach to the British nuclear deterrent? Will my right hon. Friend explain to the unilateralists that if the country were to follow their course of action we should place ourselves at the mercy not only of the Russians but of the Iraqis, the Gaddafis and others likely to acquire nuclear weapons in the 1980s?

I take a serious view of the line taken at the Labour Party conference. It meant that the Labour Party was prepared to envisage a policy that would remove our deterrent and our protection. I do not believe that the people of Britain would ever support that.

Does the Trident missile project have the full-hearted enthusiastic support of all Treasury Ministers?

Yes, Sir. It was a Government decision. The Government stand by their decision, which applies to all members.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Conservative side of the House at least, we consider it to be his prime duty to protect council and all other houses, and that the best way to do so is to ensure that the nation is properly defended? Is he further aware that he will have our fullest support when ensuring that defence expenditure is not only maintained, but increased?

I agree with my hon. Friend. If our defences are not adequate, there will not be anything worth defending.

Is it not bland of the Secretary of State to dismiss the information released to the press last week as evidence of a routine discussion? I remind him of our debate in this Chamber exactly six months ago, when some of us said that he was living in a dreamland if he believed that his plans for spending could be sustained in the light of the economic position. I remind him also of what he said to the Conservative Party conference less than three weeks ago and the firm commitment that he then gave to his existing programme. Is not the truth of the matter that the whole of our defence planning is now in a mess?

No Sir. It is reasonable for a Chancellor of the Exchequer—indeed, it would be surprising if he did not—to seek to carry out Government policy at a lesser cost. There is an annual round of talks about public expenditure within the Government, and that is taking place at present. Announcements will be made in due course. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that, as he knows, we spent substantially more on defence last year than during the previous year, following a series of declines; that this year we are spending more than last year; and that next year we shall spend more than this year. That is the position. If the Opposition had responsibility for defence—if we understand their position, which is somewhat confused—the defences of Britain would deteriorate at an alarming rate and security could not be guaranteed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made, in consultation with NATO Allies, towards the establishment of a rapid deployment force.

I welcome the establishment by the United States of a rapid deployment force as a valuable contribution to deterring further Soviet encroachment. The United Kingdom will do whatever it can to support the United States; and, as my lion. Friend will know, we are considering how we can enhance our own rapid deployment capability.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent dangerous events in the Gulf war have emphasised yet again how necessary a rapid deployment force might be as an insurance policy for our national security? As the American rapid deployment force seems to be taking shape very slowly indeed, will my right hon. Friend press our European allies and, indeed, our own forces, to make preparations for this?

Yes, and, as I made clear in the White Paper, we are considering ways in which we can increase our flexibility and capability to act outside the NATO boundaries if that should prove necessary. In fact, as my hon. Friend knows, we have two Royal Navy ships in the Gulf at present, available if necessary to protect our merchant shipping. But I believe that the strategic frontiers of Europe lie far beyond the NATO boundaries and that it is necessary for us and our allies to do what we can to be able to act in a military capacity if circumstances make that desirable.

Does the Secretary of State accept that he will have the loyal support of many Labour Members in his efforts to bring the overspending by his Department under control? Does he also recognise that at a time when the television channels show British sailors playing cards because we cannot afford the fuel to enable them to sail their vessels, it is nothing but the purest folly to pretend that Britain could create a force that could go anywhere in the world, at any time and fight anyone?

I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. No one has pretended that we have the capability that he has just described to go anywhere, with any force, at any time. I have always made it clear that, due to our economic circumstances, it is not possible for us to make other than a modest contribution outside the NATO boundaries. However, to the extent that it can be increased, improved and made more versatile and flexible, I think that is an advantage, and I shall work in that direction. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the spending of my Department. I am taking all the steps that I can—obviously—to cut out unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. All Ministers do that, and it is going on in my Department very vigorously.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the mobilisation and deployment of the Reserve Services in the NATO exercise Crusader?

There is a later question on that subject, so perhaps I had better not pursue it now.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it it now six months since he said in his White Paper that he was considering various measures to improve the mobility of British forces outside the NATO area? Will he tell the House what decisions have been made about that, what costs will fall on the defence budget as a result of that, and whether that expenditure will be in addition to the 3 per cent. increase that he has committed to NATO, or whether it will mean a further reduction in the funds available for the defence of NATO Europe?

I should like to say two things in reply: first, the cost will fall within our budget; secondly, what I am envisaging, and always have, is the use of our existing forces. I am not thinking of creating a separate force, in the sense that the United States is doing, that is able to go to a certain part of the world. What I am trying to create are the circumstances in which we can put together, as appropriate, perhaps a parachute capability or some other capability that can be used in particular circumstances. What we are looking at is how we can bring together a wider range of capabilities, move them more quickly to wherever they may be required and whether we can stockpile. That work continues.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report progress on the adoption of the Trident missile.

Exchanges of letters between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, were signed on 30 September, extending the provisions of the Polaris sales agreement of 1963 to cover the supply of the Trident I weapon system. Copies of these letters are in the Vote Office. Detailed planning of the programme is in hand and the procurement of certain materials has started.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that that news will be welcome to Conservative Members, particularly in the light of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—who I see on the Opposition Front Bench—that we should unilaterally disarm? In those circumstances, does not that mean that Labour Members should cease to be called "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"?

As I have already said this afternoon, I am concerned about the extent to which the Labour Party appears to be going in the direction of unilateralism. I think that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has always been of that school of thought, and I understand those who take that view, but it remains the view of the Government, and it was the view of all previous Governments of all parties, that this is a necessary part of our deterrent. Indeed, the NATO strategy, which is the essence of our defensive system, contains a nuclear element which all the allies support and which all the allies believe would be extremely damaging if it were not there. Therefore, I cannot say too strongly how much I believe talk and the thought of unilateralism at this stage in our history to be unwise and unsound.

Did the Secretary of State read the recent MORI public opinion poll in The Sunday Times, which showed that a clear majority of the British people are in favour of spending less on arms and more on housing? Is he aware of the widespread and growing feeling that it is indecent to spend £5,000 million on Trident, while at the same time cutting expenditure on the homeless. the sick, the unemployed and children?

I feel exactly the same about that as the hon. Gentleman does. I want to spend more on housing and social issues, and so does everyone, but unless they are protected, and unless we have a defence that will deter an aggressor from starting a war, we will find not only that we have a war, but that we have lost our freedoms.

How much will the cost of an independent nuclear deterrent be at the expense of essential naval and other Service commitments?

Just as Polaris was fitted into the ordinary routine budget, so will Trident I be. Although massively expensive, it is not as expensive as the Tornado programme, but it will fit into the programme and therefore will not be at the expense of other things. Whatever weapons system one buys one can only spend that money once, and the object of the expenditure and the defence budget is to have at the end of it, along with our allies, a capability that is comprehensive, complete and effective in order to preserve the peace. In our view, and in the view of our allies, Trident I will be a great addition to our deterrent, and therefore a major contribution to peace.

While supporting my right hon. Friend's decision on Trident, may I ask him to make certain that as much as possible of the sophisticated back-up equipment necessary to make the system effective is British made and produced by British firms?

Yes. I had many discussions with British industry before this decision was taken. Now that the decision has been taken, I can tell my hon. Friend that more than 70 per cent. of the capital cost will be money spent in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest estimates of expenditure on nuclear weapons.

The main items of expenditure on nuclear forces are the running costs of the Polaris force at £165 million this year; the Chevaline improvement programme, which is now nearing completion, at a total cost of about £1,000 million: and the Trident programme at an estimated total capital cost, spread over 15 years, of the order of £4½ billion to £5 billion.

At a time when the Government are introducing massive public expenditure cuts over the whole range of social services, why are they unilaterally increasing expenditure on nuclear weapons? Would not their efforts be better used to maintain the peace of the world through a non-proliferation treaty? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the war in Iran and Iraq would be better if both sides had nuclear weapons?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that this increase in expenditure is not unilateral. The Alliance as a whole believes that it is necessary to spend more. Of course, as I have said, I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to spend more on other things that will be socially advantageous.

As all the major Warsaw Pact defence manoeuvres end in practising for nuclear war, would not that question be better directed to the Kremlin? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm our loyalty to NATO and to the NATO Treaty, both in conventional and nuclear weapons?

The biggest exercise of all did not end in the nuclear issue, because it was designed for a different purpose. I do not think that any hon. Member is in the slightest doubt about our adhesion to NATO, including the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) who is at present speaking for the Opposition on defence. I endorse and confirm that we strongly support the NATO aim of annual increases of about 3 per cent., because we believe that that is necessary. During the Government's first year in office we achieved that increase, and we hope that we shall achieve it this year. However, we cannot at this stage say what the outcome for the current year will be.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the only credibility that he can claim for his argument against nuclear disarmament is that NATO nuclear arms are always technically inferior to those possessed by the Russians? If that is the case he can claim that he would want to negotiate from a position of strength, but if he is saying that British arms are superior to those of the Soviet Union, how can he maintain his argument against disarmament?

There is a later question on arms control, but I am not sure that I followed the drift of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I have not made any comment this afternoon about the relative technical excellence of our weapons as against those of the Russians.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Afghanistan had had a nuclear deterrent the Russians would have thought more before attempting to invade that country?

Whether or not they would have invaded, the Russians made a disastrous error of judgment in invading Afghanistan because they alerted the rest of the world to their true intentions, or at least to the fact that they are prepared to use their growing military strength for military purposes in a neutral and independent sovereign State. I do not know whether nuclear weapons would have deterred them, but I know that the Soviet Union trains its military personnel in the use of nuclear weapons as offensive weapons, and that gives cause for a great deal of concern in the House.

We should be clear about the Government's intentions with regard to the 3 per cent. increase in defence spending. The Secretary of State said that he could not say whether the Government would achieve a 3 per cent. increase this year. I understand that to mean that the Department is never clear whether it will underspend or overspend. Will the right hon. Gentlemen say plainly that he is still committed, as he was six months ago, to a 3 per cent. further increase in the coming financial year?

The Government remain committed to a 3 per cent. increase—this year, next year and the year after. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we cannot be certain, because we do not know whether we will overspend or underspend, but that is the aim, and we are committed to it. [Interruption.] Labour Members shake their heads, but we achieved 3 per cent. real growth last year over the previous year. If the Labour Party was in power that figure would be lower, because it gave a commitment at the time of the general election that it would reduce expenditure on defence, and at the Labour Party conference it was made clear that that figure would be reduced still further. That should cause great anxiety throughout the country, because if that happened we would not be secure and, we would not have a defensive capability to preserve the peace. It is a serious issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has introduced to eliminate wasteful or inefficient defence expenditure.

I am determined to ensure that defence spending is geared directly to the operational capability of the Forces and that administrative overheads are reduced to the absolute minimum. I have taken a number of measures to improve efficiency and to reduce manpower. Civilian numbers have fallen by over 15,000 since April 1979.

The Secretary of State said that he does not want to spend a pound more on defence than he has to. Will he explain why his Department is the only one that is not able to control its expenditure?

Expenditure is under control. The savings that I make in administration, and perhaps by rearranging tasks, is money saved from that use. I switch that to the use of what is described in the jargon as the "sharp end". Expenditure is under control. In the current year we have experienced a situation in which because of the shortage of civil orders, firms are delivering defence equipment more quickly than they have done before which has caused a distortion. In the moratorium I have taken steps to rein back our expenditure so that we can get as near as possible to the cash limits.

While there may be different views as to what constitutes "wasteful and inefficient", the effect of the moratorium, particularly on certain small businesses, has been disruptive and harmful. I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the case of Ian Williams and Company, which has had to make a considerable part of its work force redundant, and may have to increase that scale of redundancy unless there is an announcement soon of my right hon. Friend's intentions regarding the moratorium.

I regretted having to use such a blunt instrument as a moratorium to correct the problem, which was due to a more rapid level of bill-paying than had previously been experienced. I hope to make an announcement during the next few days about the period after the moratorium. I do not think that it can or should continue in its present form, because it is too blunt. I have had discussions with different sections of industry to try to find the least damaging way from their point of view to continue after the moratorium with a strict regime to control expenditure and to bring it nearer to our cash limits.

Is it not becoming clearer every day that the huge increases in Service pay, with which the Conservatives tried to buy votes at the election, are being paid for at the price of cancellation, postponement and reduction of important procurements of new weapons which they need to defend themselves and the country?

No, Sir. It would be fair to say that the morale of the Services when we took office was not high—they had been through a difficult period—but I am pleased to say that it is now much better. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not simply a question of money. It is also a question of their being appreciated by the nation, by this House and by the Government. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

In the interests of useful and efficient expenditure, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is a widespread welcome in my constituency for the order that he announced yesterday to Plessey of Christchurch? For the benefit of those who profess to be interested in creating employment, will he do his best to ensure that that example is spread further and elsewhere?

Ptarmigan meets a vital requirement as a replacement of the tactical trunk communications system for BAOR. It will provide jobs for many people for many years.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is Government policy for the Armed Forces to encourage the development of sport; and if so, what steps he is taking to implement that policy.

Yes, Sir. We regard the promotion of sport within the Armed Forces as an important contribution to the morale, physical efficiency and public image of the Armed Forces, as well as to the quality of life within the Services. Service personnel are therefore provided with a wide variety of sports facilities. It is also our policy to allow the maximum use of our facilities by civilian sports clubs, associations and individuals, where there is no conflict with Service requirements.

Is the Minister aware that I recently went to a football match at Crossmaglen, at which, midway through the second half, some of the players and spectators were in danger of being decapitated by a British Army helicopter that was coming in to land at the side of the pitch? As this type of provocation and intimidation of young people seems to be a regular occurrence in that area. is it not about time that the British Army stopped adopting such spoilsport tactics, and also stopped occupying part of a football ground that does not belong to it?

I am not aware of the hon. Gentleman's habits, sporting or otherwise. However, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the football ground at Crossmaglen, but I can add nothing to the answers that were given to him by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 10 July.

If the Minister is so concerned to assist sport through the Services, why has the Services' entry to the round-the-world yacht race been cancelled?

Because the sporting activities of members of the Armed Forces must be governed by the same financial restraints as apply across the whole field of expenditure.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Services have always encouraged sport? Will he consider sending congratulations to Squadron Leader George Lee on again being selected to defend his world championship gliding title?

It might be more appropriate for my hon. Friend to do that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total mobilised strength of Great Britain's Armed Forces; and what percentage of the population this represents.

The total strength of the Armed Forces, including Reserves and locally entered personnel, on 31 August 1980 was 605,100. This represents approximately 1·1 per cent of the United Kingdom population.

Is it not a matter of concern that 99 per cent of the population should be without a war role in a crisis, and without any form of weapon for self-defence? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no more cost-effective way of providing for manpower than using the Territorial and Reserve Forces? Is it not urgent that these should be strengthened, at least to the sizes prevailing in countries such as Switzerland, Sweden and Finland?

I think that it is important to note that the size of our Regular and Reserve Forces has increased by over 22,000 since the Government came to office and that recruitment of Regulars and the number of volunteers for the Territorial Army are running at near-record levels, if not at record levels. I hope that that will be a matter of satisfaction for all concerned.

Will the Minister confirm that, contrary to the assumption of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), these are the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom?

Certainly. The figures that I have been given relate to the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom. It is important to stress that we are concerned not with sheer numbers but with highly trained professional people who undertake the tasks that are necessary to provide the deterrent capability that this country needs.

The Minister must be aware that almost all of those who are in the Armed Forces will have to serve in the mainland European theatre in the event of a European war. What steps is he proposing to take to enable the homeland to be defended if the main forces are isolated in Europe?

During the Army debate on 26 June I indicated that we were giving fresh consideration to the arrangements for the defence of the home base. I assure my hon. Friend that these studies are continuing. I hope that it will not be too long before some further announcement can be made.

Do these figures mean anything at all? Do they manage to confirm, for example, that pilots in operational squadrons of the Royal Air Force are prevented from flying more than 15 hours per month, and that at well below maximum aircraft performance levels? Since pilots and many other people in the Services are prevented from maintaining their skills, are not the Minister's answers about the numbers and the Government's position indicative of absolute hypocrisy?

Of course not. I am assured that in the Royal Air Force, as in the other two Services, the restrictions on training are not interfering with the operational effectiveness of our Armed Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about co-operation with the Chinese Government in preventing the spread of Soviet imperialism.

There is a considerable degree of understanding between Britain and China on world issues, particularly on the need to maintain strong defences against any potential aggressor. We attach importance to the continuing development of our relations with China in many fields, especially trade. The development of our relationship is not directed against any third country.

In the light of events in Afghanistan, will my right hon. Friend do what he can to help those countries that have the misfortune to be neighbours of the Soviet Union to defend themselves? Will he confirm that in matters such as defence policy and arms sales we now regard the Government of China as our allies?

We are developing a trade relationship with China, and that includes certain arms sales, principally in the direction of modernising the equipment in the possession of China. That is the basis on which we are talking to them all the time. Some contracts have already been signed.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter, bearing in mind that we are prepared to sell arms to China and that the American Administration is working very closely with that country on defence matters? Why should not we have, for example, a training mission there to help the Chinese to build up their tank divisions?

It is possible that that might develop in due course, but we are only at the beginning of a developing relationship with China. That is something that we can consider.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the cost and dangers of introducing cruise missiles to Great Britain and the proposed Polaris replacement programme.

Since last December I have received some 1,000 letters and about 20 petitions about the decision to base United States ground-launched cruise missiles in the United Kingdom, and since July I have received some 70 letters and two petitions on Trident.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider his earlier answers? Will he now realise that it is abhorrent to millions of people in Britain, including a great many who voted Conservative at the last general election, that on the one hand, the Government are spending thousands of millions of pounds on unusable dangerous weapons, while on the other they are destroying social provision and our industrial base, which will be essential in any conflict?

I think that a balance of terror is an unacceptable way of preserving the peace. In due course, and as early as possible, we hope that there will be another way. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that not only is the idea of that abhorrent to people in this country, but that if it were ever put to them it would be abhorrent to people in the Soviet Union and in all the Warsaw Pact countries. One of the major problems that I see is that, unfortunately, there is no way of reaching the Russian people, but I hope that in due course it will be possible to reach them, although I do not know how.

Since both of these weapons systems are an essential part of an agreed NATO strategy, will my right hon. Friend, in his reply to these matters, point out that it would be political cowardice and moral humbug if we were to duck out of all responsibility and shelter behind other people carrying it?

That would be an extremely unwise course. No British Government have regarded it as a sensible course to pursue, and I trust that that will always be the position.

Did the Secretary of State notice that the figure given for the solving of London's housing problem was £5 billion—exactly the price of Trident? Would it not be better to spend the money on housing?

If we did not protect London adequately it might be at risk, as it has been before. That is the point that we must recognise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the modernisation of the Alliance's theatre nuclear forces is one of the most important strategic matters before the House and the country? The Western Powers are outnumbered in theatre nuclear systems by 10:1 in Europe and if we do not wish to be intimidated or blackmailed, we must modernise.

Yes. It was a unanimous decision. That modernisation programme is an integral part of the whole defence strategy of NATO.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made with developing a long-range British military capability that can operate outside the NATO area.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are making Britain look ridiculous in the eyes of the world? He is posturing that we can police the high seas of the Indian Ocean, while the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is telling him that he will not even pay for the paraffin that is necessary for the exercise. Is it not time that we gave up these absurd pretentions to great Power status?

I am not posturing in any such way, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is impossible for any country to defend itself by itself. Defence can be undertaken only on a collective basis. Every country must appreciate that it is interdependent on every other country. We must all contribute to the whole whatever is appropriate. Owing to our history and circumstances, we have certain capabilities that it is appropriate to make available. I have always described them as modest. I wish that they were less modest. I have to face the facts of what we are able to do. It is because our capabilities are modest that it is all the more important that we co-operate with our allies throughout the world, so that between us we continue to preserve the peace.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to Labour Members below the Gangway that Britain requires vital raw materials that come from all parts of the world, that to guarantee the safe arrival of raw materials that are vital for manufacturing industry we must have defence forces stationed throughout the world, and that if we are to do that we must co-operate with other Western countries that share our love of freedom?

I applaud my hon. Friend's intention. I think that I might get a better hearing when the Opposition have sorted themselves out a bit.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the results of the Crusader exercise in September; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, exercise Crusader was very successful. Over 30,000 troops were moved from the United Kingdom, including some 20,000 members of the Territorial Army and substantial numbers of the RAF. The Territorial Army turnout was high, and its performance throughout received well-deserved praise. The great majority of reinforcements were in their exercise positions within 48 hours of leaving their bases, demonstrating our ability to reinforce BAOR swiftly and effectively should the need arise. The field training exercise in Germany, in which United States and German forces played a prominent part, tested our operational techniques on a scale previously untried.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House who were fortunate enough to be present to observe part of Crusader were highly impressed by the professional activities of our Armed Forces, especially those of the Territorial Army? Is there any possibility of my hon. Friend's persuading his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to produce a report showing exactly the extent of Crusader and how successful it was?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the well-deserved tribute that he pays. It will take several months before the results of the exercise have been analysed in detail. There is no question but that valuable lessons are being learnt. When the report is compiled in the new year we shall consider how much of it can be presented to the House, within the restrictions of security.

Is the Minister aware that his answer is extraordinarily complacent? The Crusader exercise indicated once again the growing urgency of local and transatlantic reinforcement, supply and reception, and has thus called into question the Secretary of State's priorities, especially those that suggest his growing interest in military deployment beyond the Tropic of Cancer.

Labour Members must make up their minds on whether they want more money spent on defence, or less. It is clear that the exercise revealed that we were able to provide reinforcements for Germany within 48 hours. I think that that is a tribute to everyone concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in his negotiations with the United States Administration with regard to the final settlement of the real cost of Trident, the revised estimate of the date it will be in service and its use under the direct control of Her Majesty's Government.

On the question of negotiations with the United States Government, I refer to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). As to the costs, in-service date and control of Trident, my hon. Friend will have seen the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and President Carter, published in Cmnd. 7979, and the memorandum on the future United Kingdom strategic nuclear deterrent force, which I published in July.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends in congratulating him on the work that he has done on this important missile. Does he agree that the missile provides an umbrella of protection not only for ourselves but for NATO and our allies in Europe? Would it not be appropriate if they made some contribution towards the cost of the weapon?

All the members of NATO contribute to NATO in different ways. A unique feature of the British contribution is Polaris, and later it will be the Trident missile system, which no other country in Europe could provide. It is part of our total defence contribution. Other countries spend more money on, and have a greater presence in terms of, for instance, their armies. I think that it is best to leave matters in that way. In other words, we share the total contribution by the different ways in which we contribute to NATO.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 October.

This morning I welcomed President Masire of Botswana and held meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having talks with President Masire later this afternoon, and this evening I shall preside at a dinner in his honour.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the present level of unemployment, redundancies and closures is a grave indictment of her Administration, and that she has betrayed the high office that she holds? Is she further aware that if the Cabinet agrees to further cuts it will deepen the recession and force even more of our fellow citizens to rot on the dole queue?

With regard to the main part of the hon. Gentleman's question about cuts, what the Government are trying to do is to hold to the public expenditure totals that were published for this year and next. The private sector has to keep within its own budget and, indeed, sometimes has to cut costs. The Government are trying to keep within their pre-announced totals. We should and must do that if there is to be room within the private sector for the necessary measures that it needs to take. It is wrong to say that cuts in public expenditure will lead to further unemployment. If we leave more and more burdens to fall on the private sector, that is where the unemployment will arise.

Will my right hon. Friend today alert the electorate to the despicable resolution that was passed at the recent Labour Party conference, which indicated that council house tenants who have been given the right to buy their homes will not be able to resell them at market value? Will she further alert the electorate to the fact that the resolution was described by a Labour Privy Councillor as being an incentive for people to vote Tory at the next election?

I firmly believe in the latter point that my hon. Friend makes—that people cannot sign away their statutory right to purchase their council houses if they have been council tenants. I hope that they will take my hon. Friend's advice and keep a Tory Government in office, so that they can keep their new property.

We shall debate the Government's appalling unemployment record tomorrow. The right hon. Lady referred to "holding public expenditure". In view of the answers that have been given this afternoon, will she tell us which side she takes on the issue of public expenditure on defence? Is she on the side of the Secretary of State for Defence or on that of the Chief Secretary, or does she think that this correspondence should now cease?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that defence matters, and matters concerning any other sphere of government, cannot be carried on other than on a basis of confidence and trust. Matters that are confidential should be kept confidential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier replied to certain questions about defence expenditure. The cash limit for this year's defence expenditure has been increased by about £250 million from the Contingency Reserve.

Will the right hon. Lady now be good enough to tell us whether she agrees with the Chief Secretary's letter?

I do not intend to take lectures on defence from the right hon. Gentleman.

Does the right hon. Lady recognise the distinction made by the chairman of ICI between a bracing climate and freezing to death? If she does not, will she at least listen to the experienced voices of her own Back Benchers, who are calling for a cut in interest rates in order to increase industrial activity and employment?

I am the first person to want a cut in interest rates when such a cut is possible. As the right hon. Gentleman observed, interest rates in the market were well above minimum lending rate last week. We cannot bring down interest rates while the demand for loans by the Government and by companies together is as high as it is. I trust that we shall have the full support of the right hon. Gentleman as we try to reduce the amount of public borrowing, so that there is greater room for private sector borrowing at a lower interest rate.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to endorse the judgment that was expressed last week by the Minister for Social Security, to the effect that if the Government had to apologise for anything—if—it was for cutting too little, too late? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the country that a critical review of public expenditure commitments will be undertaken, from which no Department will be exempt?

I agree that the public sector cannot go on withdrawing resources from the private sector. The private sector needs those resources if it is to remain in a healthy condition and expand. There must be a limit to the amount that the public sector can spend. However much one may want to spend more on particular projects, the money must be earned before we can spend it.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Tuesday 28 October.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave earlier.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to send a message of congratulation and encouragement to Mr. Walecsa, the leader of the Polish trade union movement, who effectively and democratically used trade union action to bring fundamental changes in Government policy as well as the sacking of Poland's Prime Minister? Will the Prime Minister encourage the trade union movement to do the same thing in this country?

I rather thought that this country had had free trade unions for generations, with privileges above those of other citizens.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of private industry in Britain is making a profit but is paying far too much of that profit—if not all of it—to the banks in the form of interest rates? Does she agree also that the private sector of manufacturing industry carries the brunt of the effect of the Government's policy? Will she look at what other countries, such as the Federal Republic of Germany, do to assist their industries when interest rates rise above a certain level? In that way we can ensure that there is some manufacturing base left when my right hon. Friend's overall policies—which I fully support—are successful.

The total demand for borrowing—partly by the public sector and partly by the private sector—keeps up interest rates. The Government can try to borrow less, and thus allow the interest rate to fall. When there is high public sector borrowing, there tends to be a high interest rate. If we can reduce public sector borrowing, there will be a lower interest rate. We must reduce the proportion that the Government take in public spending, in order to leave the greater part for the private sector.

During her busy day, will the Prime Minister find time to reflect on the reply that she sent to me yesterday about the actions of the Conservative Board of Finance, which wrote a squalid fund-raising letter to 50 companies—including one in my constituency—merely because they were in receipt of Government grants? Will she make it clear to the Conservative Board of Finance that this type of letter, which was little more than an invitation to corruption, provoked a sense of revulsion in all parts of the House?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to add that my reply to him pointed out at once that that letter should not have been sent. I said that at once, and the letter was withdrawn immediately.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the righteous anger of reasonable Ulster people, who feel that the offer of civilian-type dress to prisoners in Northern Ireland is the first stage of capitulation to the evil murderers and men of violence in H-block, who have made a propaganda exercise of this issue? Will she commit the Government to offering civilian-type dress to all prisoners thoughout the United Kingdom?

As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, this matter was under consideration for some time. If a decision was to be made, it seemed right to make it before the hunger strike started. It would have been wrong to make a decision while the hunger strike was being carried on. The decision has been made and we shall stand by it. There will be no concessions to those on hunger strike—none at all.

Why does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that her reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) was not satisfactory? Should she not have apologised for the fact that the letter was sent in the first place? Has she had time to discover how much money was raised for Conservative Party funds by this squalid method?

Nothing was raised as a result of that letter. because the matter was discovered the next day. Telephone calls were made immediately to those in receipt of the letter. An instruction was issued to the effect that the letters should be withdrawn immediately. I have given the right hon. Gentleman my views. The letter should never have been sent. Instructions were given to the effect that it should be withdrawn and returned immediately. Most of those letters have been returned.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, I do not answer for the Conservative Party.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I think that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) wishes to raise a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister—

Order. The delay will prevent my calling the next question.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay anybody but is it right for the Prime Minister to mislead the House?