asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to further the prospects of United Kingdom equipment purchases by the United States of America.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States of America.

During my visit to the United States last week, I had useful discussions with the United States Secretary of Defence and also with the Secretary of State. I met a number of senators, and visited the headquarters at Norfolk, Virginia, of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic.

Order. I did not intervene when hon. Members were interrupting the Secretary of State, but it was a very long reply, although it was a reply to two questions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the United States should purchase more equipment from the United Kingdom in view of the large sums that we spend on United States equipment and the high quality of many of our products? It is especially important to urge sales now as they would support many jobs in the United Kingdom.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing our utmost to persuade the United States to buy more defence equipment from us. There is a considerable imbalance in their favour at present. As well as discussing with Mr. Weinberger the two items that I have mentioned, we talked about Searchwater, Sting Ray, Wavell, Giant Viper, Hawk and a host of other products. I hope that we shall be successful in selling more British products to the United States in future, which will enhance employment in the United Kingdom.

Was my right hon. Friend able to say that our final decision on Trident might await the final decision of the United States on offset?

We are purchasing from the United States a ballistic missile system. I do not think that offset in the normal sense in which it is referred to is likely or relevant in that circumstance. We shall seek the maximum purchase of our equipment by the United States. The Trident missile system is something rather separate.

The Secretary of State always talks about identity of interest and the need to expand expenditure on arms even further. Did he bear in mind the speeches made at the United Nations special session on disarmament by the Prime Minister and the Vice-President of the United States? If so, how does he square the suggestion that we need more and more arms with the speeches made at the United Nations? Must we accept that those speeches meant nothing at all?

We follow what is said in the United Nations, but not all members of that important institution are on our side. I thought that it would save the time of the House if in my admittedly over-long answer to the first question I mentioned what had been discussed initially with Mr. Weinberger. I made a special point of emphasising that we discussed arms control in general. We agreed that it was necessary to secure agreement with Warsaw Pact countries on a lower level of armaments, on both sides, balanced with verifiable measures to control it. We both seek that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House welcomes his statement, especially what he said about the possibility of purchase of arms by the United States? When will he be able to tell us more about what will happen with Sting Ray? Having just returned from America, will he confirm that our relationship with the United States is very close and special and likely to continue so to be?

:Our relationship with the United States could not be warmer. I had an excellent series of talks. We were congratulated widely in the United States on our substantial contribution to NATO. Sting Ray was mentioned in our talks and we shall be following that up in future months.

There seems a great deal more discussion than action about equipment purchasing by the United States. Will the Minister confirm or deny that we have had notice of cancellation by the Americans of JP233? If that is correct, shall we continue to develop it on our own? If so, what will the extra cost be?

Under the last United States Administration, Congress was unwilling to vote the funds for the JP233. The present Administration have put the matter back before Congress, and we believe that it is likely to go through this time. Our own decision on JP233 is closely related to the progress which it makes through the United States Congress. It would be much better if we both agreed to have the weapon than if we decided to go it alone.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total cost of the Trident programme.

The figure is about £5 billion.

Even if one accepts the theory of nuclear deterrence, does the Minister not agree that the number of deterrents in the United States and the Soviet Union is now horrendous and massive and would blow mankind sky high if anything went wrong? Does he agree that any shade or nuance of meaning from this country is as nothing compared with those deterrents? The Minister says "£5 billion", so casually and almost monosyllabically. Could not that amount of money, put back into our economy, do a great deal to regenerate British industry and put many thousands of our people back to work? Would not that be better than spending it so uselessly on this so-called deterrent, basically to maintain a friendly relationship between us and the United States?

I doubt whether the shipyard workers in Barrow, who will be receiving a large proportion of that money in extra shipbuilding orders, would share the hon. Gentleman's view. Of the £5 billion, 70 per cent. will be spent with British industry; it will help to increase jobs and will go back into the British economy. As for the deterrent aspect, although, I agree, the scale of growth of nuclear strategic weapons is horrendous, our independent deterrent will make a significant contribution to the deterring of any aggressor because it involves a second area of decision-making. The hon. Gentleman must know all the arguments for that: I outlined them at some length in the recent debate on Trident.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very encouraging that 70 per cent. of the total cost of Trident will be spent in United Kingdom firms? Can he confirm that over 80 per cent. of the electronics of Trident will be backed by United Kingdom businesses?

Yes, I can confirm that 70 per cent, will be spent in this country. Without reference, I cannot tell my hon. Friend the precise percentage that will be spent on electronics in the United Kingdom but I will check that and write to him.

The Secretary of State's talk of extra jobs is a little disingenuous. If the report in The Guardian this morning is right, and the Government have refused to reopen Cammell Laird, does that mean that the Barrow shipyards will build Trident submarines at the cost of the interruption of the long programme of the hunter-killer submarine? Does he agree that that is an opportunity-cost interruption to the defence effort of this country which makes nonsense of spending £5 billion on a marginal addition to the so-called deterrent at the expense of interrupting our other defence commitments?

The future shipbuilding programme for SSNs—the non-ballistic nuclear submarines—over the 10-year period that we are talking about has not yet been decided, so the hon. Gentleman is in no position to make that judgment. As for expenditure, every Labour Government since the war have considered it desirable, if not essential, that we should have an independent strategic nuclear deterrent. If the Labour Party has changed its mind at this juncture, one must ask why, when the threat is increasing year by year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish his programme of naval shipbuilding orders for the next financial year.

It is not the practice to publish future warship ordering plans. At present, the Department holds a number of tenders from interested shipyards for a variety of vessels including a nuclear-powered fleet submarine, type 22 frigates and minesweeping trawlers.

If it is not the custom to publish figures it is surely important that the naval shipbuilding yards should know what the future building programme is likely to be. Will the Minister tell us whether it is true that the "Invincible" class of aircraft carriers or through-deck cruisers is likely to be delayed further? Can he give us any information on the type 23 frigate that we have been reading about in the newspapers?

The type 23 frigate procurement process is being accelerated as quickly as possible. The "Invincible" class anti-submarine carriers are not through-deck cruisers. They are not being delayed in any way. "Ark Royal" will be launched by Her Majesty the Queen Mother in June.

In view of the importance of the new class of diesel-electric submarine, will the Minister say something about the building programme? When can we expect to see it in service?

Not yet. Development is going ahead. These vessels are not being delayed. The 2400 class of the new SSK forms an important part of our submarine capability. I hope that within a few months I shall be able to give more details. We are still at the development stage.

Since the Minister is saying that he will not declare in advance the shipbuilding programme for the Navy—although two national newspapers this morning have well-documented accounts of the future ordering programme for the Royal Navy—will he say whether there will be a future fleet submarine ordering programme? Will it be SSN or conventional? Where will the submarines be built?

There will be SSNs and conventional submarines but I am not responsible for what appears in a speculative form in the national press.

Will the Minister explain why it is not our practice to publish details of our future warship building programme, since most of our NATO allies do? Would there not be advantages to the industry and a boost to export orders if future plans were known?

My hon. Friend has referred in the past to the five-year rolling programme, particularly in respect of the United States Navy. There is something in what he says. Procurement and ordering are presently being looked at by my noble Friend Lord Trenchard. I do not say that I can follow my hon. Friend down that path, but we shall look at it once we have got the procurement process right. I do not think that any of us is happy with the time which the procurement process takes at present, which militates against doing what my hon. Friend wishes us to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the current state of United Kingdom air defence.

No. Sir. Although we are undertaking a substantial programme of improvements which will greatly enhance our air defence capability, there can be no room for complacency about this, or any other aspect of our defences.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Does he not think that an early decision on AV8B, and some urgency in the decision that needs to be taken on the European combat aircraft, would go a long way towards giving peace of mind both to hon. Members and to other people in the country?

The AV8B is one of the options for the RAF. As my hon. Friend will have heard, my right hon. Friend had encouraging discussions with the United States last week. The attitude of the United States to the AV8B is extremely important. This is an option on which I hope we can reach a decision as soon as possible, but many important industrial and operational considerations are involved for the RAF.

Although one recognises the need for training in low flying, does the Minister accept that over-concentration of these exercises in small areas, such as Caithness, which are densely populated, leads to considerable indignation? Will he ask his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the RAF, with whom I have been in correspondence about this, to end the practice of low flying by the RAF over the village of Watten, particularly over the local school?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's attention to it. We try to vary the paths as much as possible, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it is important, for both operational and safety considerations, that our pilots get this practice.

Bearing in mind that there are now more than 3,000 Fencer, Fitter and Flogger aircraft in the infantry of Soviet frontal aviation, all with the capability of striking these shores, and that there is therefore a serious possibility that up to a third could be tasked on the United Kingdom, which has barely 70 aircraft for its entire air defence, is it not a matter of urgency for the Government to take a decision on the replacement programme for the Harrier and the Jaguar?

I have already spoken about the importance of AV8B. The other matters are under consideration by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force and my right hon. Friend, but I cannot give an answer this afternoon.

I congratulate the Minister on his additional portfolio. Will the air defence of this country be increased or retarded by the gap between the phasing out of Shackleton and the introduction of Nimrod? Is that not yet another example of the realities of Government taking over from the bluster of Opposition?

As has been said, it takes one to recognise one. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force referred to airborne early warning on 17 February. At present, he is on his way, with the head of defence sales, to represent the British aircraft industry at an important and major sales exhibition in Delhi. I am sure that the whole House will wish both him and British industry success in selling our equipment in that important market.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Ministry of Defence establishment at Shoeburyness.

There is a long-terrn requirement for the proof and experimental establishment at Shoeburyness to continue with its present defence functions.

Does the Minister agree that the Shoeburyness ranges are a unique facility in the United Kingdom? Is it the Government's intention that Shoeburyness should have an important and continuing role in the United Kingdom's defence provision?

That is most certainly so. Our present plans are to spend £¾ million on new facilities in 1981–82.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in improving the United Kingdom intervention capability outside the NATO area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom contribution will be made to any Western rapid deployment force established by the West; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is to hold any discussions with the Gulf States about new proposals for a possible intervention force for use in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the proposals for establishing a rapid deployment force for operations in the Middle East.

the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in reviewing British defence commitments in the context of the Alliance, he will have due regard to the threat to British interests outside the NATO area.

British defence activity outside the NATO area aims to help maintain stability primarily by the provision of training and assistance, participation in joint exercises and the supply of defence equipment. In addition, British Armed Forces are already available to take military action in an emergency by rapid deployment overseas.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first the five hon. Members whose questions are being answered together.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give some idea of the sort of forces which could be deployed in a rapid deployment force?

On our side, we already have a spearhead battalion, on 72 hours' notice. At present, it is the 1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment, and in two weeks' time it will be the 1st Batallion the Royal Regiment of Wales. We have enough VC1Os and Hercules aircraft to lift the battalion quickly to any necessary part of the world. We also have further units on which we can draw from the 8th Field Force, which is stationed here, which includes a fully trained parachute battalion. We also have other forces, earmarked for NATO's ACE mobile force, some of them at present deployed in the United Kingdom, on which we can draw.

Would not belief in my right hon. Friend's welcome substantive reply be undermined if anything were done to reduce the strength and effectiveness of the Royal Marine Commando Force?

I know of my hon. Friend's great concern about the proposal to merge one of the Commandos with others. As I think I have told him, there is no present intention to reduce the numbers of Royal Marine Commandos, and recruiting is still increasing their numbers. However, we envisage there being one fewer Commando.

Has the Secretary of State considered the objections to these plans from Arab States in the area? Does he appreciate that, wisely and understandably, they do not wish to be involved in this cold war strategy? Would not it be better for the Government to forget these imperialist delusions and concentrate on getting Britain back to work?

I am not aware of the objections to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I shall be going to Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrein next week. No doubt I shall hear directly how they think we can act together in our common interests to preserve parts of the world from potential threats to countries in those areas and to the West as a whole.

During my right hon. Friend's forthcoming visit to the Middle East, will he undertake to carry out detailed consultations with friendly Governments before coming to final decisions on our contribution to a RDF? In particular, is he aware that, although any extension of the existing maritime forces in the Gulf could be useful in a time of crisis, any attempt to build large military bases on foreign soil could prove both counterproductive and provocative?

The security and stability of the Gulf are in the first place matters of concern for those States themselves. We do not envisage action in the Gulf, for instance, without the full support and request of those States. It would be a common venture for the defence of countries threatened by aggression, so it would have to be by agreement and after consultation. I should have mentioned the Royal Navy's contribution, which could be significant, and in certain cases substantial, for a rapid deployment force.

Bearing in mind the vast wealth of the Gulf States, is it not best to offer them our military expertise and equipment and leave them to do best for themselves what in the end each country has to do?

Of course—that is precisely the position at present: we are providing considerable assistance to the Gulf States. They have extensive arrangements for their own defence, but if at any time they seek our assistance, I think that we should be ready to provide it.

Does the Secretary of State remember the long and successful struggle in the House to wind up our military activities east of Suez? Are the Government now proposing to return there?

I certainly remember the hon. Gentleman's struggle. Whether it was successful is a matter of judgment. We withdrew from permanent bases east of Suez, if that is what the hon. Gentleman means, and there is no intention to return to permanent bases there, in the Gulf or anywhere else. That is not, and was never said to be, the purpose of the rapid deployment force.

Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the Royal Marines? If money is to be found for a rapid deployment force, could that not be a means of giving a new lease of life to 41 Commando?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about 41 Commando. The Royal Marines generally need no new lease of life, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. On the Naval task force side, we envisage the possibility that HMS "Hermes", with a Marine Commando and with support forces, would be available for an RDF-type task. In circumstances of that kind, or in others, the marines would perform a vital role.

Does not the Secretary of State's statement that he is prepared to reassign NATO-assigned mobile forces to the RDF strike a fundamental blow at the coherence of the NATO alliance, since our first priority is to the central front of NATO?

That is not what I said at all.

Yes, it is.

No, it is not. I said that we had a spearhead battalion available in this country at 72 hours' notice. I referred to the 8th Field Force, based in the United Kingdom, which is not dedicated to SACEUR. I then said that NATO itself—SACEUR—has a mobile force which, if NATO and SACEUR so decided, might itself provide some additional forces. That is quite different from the way in which the hon. Gentleman put it.

As there are real problems with the composition and methods of control of rapid defence deployment forces outside the NATO area, when will my right hon. Friend be able to give us some idea of the Government's thinking on these complex and necessary matters?

I think that in the past five minutes I have given my hon. Friend a fairly clear idea of our thinking, but I should be happy to elaborate on it on some other occasion. A number of details have still to be settled. This depends to some extent on the Americans further developing their own ideas—for instance, on the command and control structure and on the exact composition of their forces—before we can finally tie up the details of our own contribution.

In an interview in NOW! magazine on 6 March, the Secretary of State denied that the boundaries of NATO would be extended at all. What he has now said about SACEUR seems to imply that there is a desire for extension. Does he deny that? Secondly, does he realise that the great fault in the announcement of the rapid deployment force is that the consultation took place in Washington and not in the Gulf States, where it should have been, before the force was announced? Will he kindly ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to think first and speak afterwards rather than the reverse?

There is a continuing dialogue with the Gulf States by the United States and by this country. The command and control arrangements would be national forces, not under NATO command. I must clarify once again what I said. I said that some mobile forces already exist which, if NATO so desired, might provide some forces as a mobile force. The United States, for instance, does not envisage that the RDF should be drawn from any troops on the central front. Nor do I envisage that any contribution that we might make would come from the central front. As I have said, it would come from the spearhead battalion. If more was needed, it might come from the 8th Field Force, which is in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total strength of British Armed Forces in Northern Ireland.

In Northern Ireland, there are currently 10 major units of the Regular Army deployed in the infantry role, together with supporting arms and services, 11 battalions of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and small Royal Navy and Royal Air Force elements.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that Ireland's problems are mainly political and not religious? Does he accept that Irish Protestants and Catholics can be united, as Larkin and Connolly clearly proved? Does he accept that one of the first steps towards a political solution is to withdraw British troops? Is it not important to consider that as it is most urgent to achieve some solution in that troubled island?

The Opposition's principal spokesman on defence, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), knows Northern Ireland and the role of the Army there very well. I am sure that he can give the hon. Gentleman a lesson on both subjects.

Is not one right hon. Gentleman who does not understand the role of the Army in Northern Ireland the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)? In an attempt to remove the right hon. Gentleman's paranoia, will my hon. Friend consider taking him by the hand, and showing him what our soldiers are doing to defend human life in the United Kingdom?

I think that it is generally agreed that the right hon. Gentleman's speech at the weekend was most unfortunate.

Is the Minister aware that there is a general support throughout the community for the policy that is resulting in the Royal Ulster Constabulary assuming responsibility for law enforcement throughout the Province, with the Army fulfilling its rightful role in defending the frontier of the United Kingdom?

As a Minister in Northern Ireland for 20 months, I know personally that that is true.

Will the Minister confirm that his long-term policy is for policing eventually to revert to the police, together with the maintenance of law and order? Meanwhile, does he agree that the unilateral withdrawal of British troops would serve no purpose whatever and is not the policy of the Labour Party?

I absolutely and completely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects cruise missiles to be delivered and deployed on British soil.

Late in 1983.

Will my hon. Friend confirm yet again that cruise missiles form a vital part of our overall defence strategy? Will he further confirm that when cruise: missies are deployed on training exercises they will not carry live warheads?

That is most certainly true. On exercises, cruise missiles will deploy only to Ministry of Defence training areas, and they will carry neither warheads nor fuel.

Although Liberal Members support the idea of updating our NATO nuclear weapons, Will the Minister confirm that, if meaningful progress can be made with the Russians and the Warsaw Pact countries over the withdrawal of the SS20s and other weapons, Her Majesty's Government intend not to proceed with the introduction of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom?

I am happy to say that the Russians have been more forthcoming on talks since the deployment of these weapons was announced. There will be a further meeting of the NATO steering group, which deals with questions of arms negotiations, in the very near future.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the theatre nuclear role assigned to the Tomahawk cruise missiles to be deployed in the United Kingdom is not the only purpose for which cruise missiles were designed, and that there will shortly be a real requirement for air-launched cruise missiles or effective stand-off weaponry to improve the penetrating capability of British air power?

That is under active consideration at this moment.

But will the Minister confirm that NATO agreement to the deployment of cruise missiles was given on condition that the disarmament talks would take place with the Russians? Will the Minister therefore accept that hon. Members in all parts of the House expect an energetic pursuit of those talks with the Russians before cruise is ever deployed?

As I said, there is to be a meeting of the steering group. The discussions are scheduled to be held in the very near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest figures for the costs associated with maintaining British troops in Germany; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. MeAlber for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) on 27 January 1981.

Will the Minister accept that, in terms of Army support, it is intolerable that a relatively poor country such as Britain should be effectively subsidising Germany, which is a very rich country? Irrespective of any mistakes in this direction which may have been made by the Labour Government, will the Minister now accept that it is time to reopen the negotiations to see whether we can receive a satisfactory payment from Germany towards this cost?

When the Labour Government concluded the final offset agreement in 1977, it was part of that agreement that there would be no continuing negotiations on this subject. Since then, the German trade balance has gone into deficit and ours has gone into surplus.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of the light anti-armour weapon.

A man portable lightweight anti-armour weapon known as LAW 80 is under development for introduction into the British Army during the early 1980s.

Will my hon. Friend agree that the light anti-armour weapon could make a most cost-effective contribution to the task of stopping mass attacks of Warsaw Pact armour in a central European theatre? What other NATO countries have agreed to adopt this weapon?

It is still in the development stage, but we hope and believe that there will be a large sale to our friends and allies.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are laid down before foreign troops are accepted for training with members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces in this country or elsewhere.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 March and to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House to a similar question from the hon. Gentleman on 12 February last year.

Will the Minister accept that training in horrific interrogation techniques is sometimes given to the troops of Governments who oppose human rights and who may be hostile to the interests of this country? Does he justify this? Will he comment on the fact that Iranian troops and Argentinian troops are at present, as I understand from his reply to my question, in training in this country?

We do not train any overseas students in interrogation techniques. Although there were about 1,000 Iranians being trained in this country, there are now about 20, and one Argentinian is being trained.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 March.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I was also present when Her Majesty the Queen welcomed President Shagari of Nigeria. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, and this evening I shall attend a State banquet given by the Queen in honour of President Shagari.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the press reports of the tremendous success being enjoyed by British Leyland's Mini Metro, which is currently top of the sales league? Is not the message for British industry that if the work forces and managements of companies work together as teams they will enjoy greater success, with better results for employment? Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate the whole of British Leyland's management and work force team?

The news about the Mini Metro was very good. I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation to congratulate both the management and the work force. I hope that the Mini Metro will sell well and that the number of sales will continue to increase. However, many must be sold before the break-even point is reached. I should very much like British Leyland to sell enough to make a profit.

In what circumstances has the right hon. Lady set up an inquiry into an alleged Budget leak?

I personally do not set up inquiries into matters that are within the province of the Treasury. The inquiry has been set up in the normal way by the Treasury. The Treasury is taking action through the usual Civil Service departments.

Must I take it that this is a normal inquiry into the usual leakage? May I press the right hon. Lady further? Does she not think that perhaps the most serious of last week's leakages occurred last Friday when it was suggested that she or those closely associated with her had said that it would not be possible to hold pre-Budget Cabinet meetings to discuss the contents of the Budget because of the danger of leakage and because what was discussed in the morning might be out by tea-time? Who are these tea-time traitors? Can the right hon. Lady enlighten us a little more about that and about whether the leakage came from her office?

In all the time that I have been in Cabinet I cannot remember a Budget that was discussed in Cabinet before it had been prepared.

It is a most extraordinary development if the Cabinet does not discuss the Budget beforehand. That was not the practice of previous Cabinets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I can assure the House that there were discussions, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said yesterday. However, I am asking the right hon. Lady about her statements, or about the statements that have been attributed to her, which were released on Friday. They imply that she would have difficulty in instituting any discussions on such matters in this Cabinet. Did that leakage come from her office, or from thin air?

Budget Statements are never discussed in Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that things were different in his time. I wonder why we frequently saw news items to the effect that on the day before the Budget or on the morning of the Budget the Cabinet had been called together to be told its precise contents.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the enormous rates increase that has occurred in the borough of Preston since the Labour Party took control? Before that take-over Preston had the lowest rates in the United Kingdom. Under Labour control, the borough has announced a rate rise of 160 per cent.

I hope that the electorate will draw the lesson from my hon. Friend's question. Labour Governments and authorities are adept at spending other people's money.

A week after the Budget Statement, is it still the Prime Minister's view that we must go on taking the medicine? If so, will she bear it in mind that the side of every medicine bottle bears the words "Caution—do not exceed the stated dose"?

The stated dose has not yet been exceeded.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 March.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Does the Financial Secretary's recent speech, which seemed to give enormously high priority to cuts in direct taxation despite the fact that they will mean substantial increases in unemployment, have the right hon. Lady's approval?

I think that the hon. Gentleman must be referring to a television interview in which my right hon. Friend repeated that it was our objective to reduce the standard rate of income tax. That was and remains our objective, and it is a very good one. The Labour Party would have increased income tax.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that civil servants who take part in the current dispute will lose their pay for the days that they are on strike?

:people in the Civil Service are not paid for the days that they are on strike.

Since the Prime Minister came into office nearly two years ago, millions of people have suffered as a result of her policies. In what way have she or her family suffered in that time?

I do not think that I answer for anything personal at this Dispatch Box.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend try to find time during her busy day to urge the nation to buy more British manufactured goods? At the same time, will she underline the point that buying British will save British jobs?

Many people could help by buying a larger proportion of British-made goods. I said as much in a speech about a fortnight ago. We cannot always buy British-made goods because jobs are also involved in exports. As my hon. Friend said, it would undoubtedly provide more jobs if more people were to use their pay packets to buy goods made in this country.

During the right hon. Lady's discussions with President Shagari of Nigeria, will she give him an undertaking that when the subject of Namibia next comes before the Security Council the British Government will support mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa?

I can give no such undertaking. The British Government will continue to work in the usual way in which we have been working with our partners in order to achieve a settlement in Namibia. In that way Namibia can reach true independence through a proper election and a free ballot.

Following the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents feel that civil servants are neither underpaid nor lacking in job security? In the light of the current dispute, will she redouble her efforts to review the manpower levels in every Department of central Government?

It is true that the pay of civil servants and of those working in local authorities is, in money terms, about 50 per cent. above the level of two years ago. That shows that the Government have tried to give those who work in the public service a fair and true deal. We have announced that we wish to reduce the Civil Service to its lowest post-war level of 630,000. We shall pursue that objective vigorously.

Will the right hon. Lady spend time today considering the secrecy that surrounds the way in which Governments traditionally approach their Budget plans? In future, could not the options that underlie the Budget be made public before the Statement, so that debate in the House and in the country may be better informed?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the recent decision of the Scottish Labour Party conference in favour of setting up a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers? Does she not agree that another layer of bureaucracy and of taxation is the last thing that Scotland needs?

I agree with both the opinions so ably expressed by my hon. Friend.

Has the right hon. Lady had time to consider last night's vote on the increased petrol tax? The increase was universally condemned by her right hon. and hon. Friends—[Interruption.] Indeed, the increase resulted in at least one defection from the right hon. Lady's party. May I take it that between now and Committee stage—which I hope will be taken on the Floor of the House—the Government will review their policy and remove that tax increase?

No, Sir. As for the majority, I seem to recall that the Labour Party nationalised British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders on a majority of one. Ours was 1,400 per cent. better than that.

In view of the continuing disruption by civil servants, has my right hon. Friend reached any conclusions about the statement made by the strike coordinator 10 days ago that the intention is to damage economic strategy and to reduce the country's defence capability? Does not that go beyond a pay dispute and threaten democratic Government itself? Does it not argue for a renegotiation of conditions of employment of key workers to prevent such sabotage of national security?

We would regard these matters very seriously indeed. Sometimes, indeed, I have suggested myself that we have no-strike agreements. We believe that in key matters of this kind it should be almost a matter of honour that there should be no strike without negotiating a special agreement about it.

Since the right hon. Lady seems to be happy about the result of the vote in the House on the petrol tax, and since the increase seems to be causing such great disturbance in the country at large, would she not care to think it over and perhaps make the matter the subject of a free vote in the House?

No, Sir.