asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the general safety provisions at Her Majesty's dockyard, Rosyth.

The safety arrangements at Her Majesty's naval base, Rosyth, are subject to regular inspections and I am satisfied that in general they are satisfactory. Shortcomings in the procedures for the control of a radioactive source in the health physics department and some minor weaknesses in other areas have, however, been identified and are being corrected.

Does the Minister recognise that he needs to be rather more forthcoming to the House and to those outside on this and other aspects of safety? Will he consider asking the Health and Safety Executive to conduct a review of safety and security at the base?

The Health and Safety Executive's accident prevention advisory unit has recently completed an independent and wide-ranging review of the dockyards to assess both their health and their safety performance. The inspectors have visited Rosyth and I expect their report very soon. I understand that they have not identified any major weaknesses or shortcomings.

Is my hon. Friend fully satisfied that the same conditions have been examined at Chatham dockyard, that there is no cause for any alarm, and that the regulations are absolutely perfect?

I am never satisfied that regulations are absolutely perfect. However, I can confirm that the Health and Safety Executive is carrying out, or has carried out, a similar survey at Chatham dockyard. I shall be studying its report in due course. Again, I understand that there are no major weaknesses. I do not wish to be complacent about Chatham, Rosyth or any other dockyard.

Is there any danger from the radioactive unit that went missing recently? Has it been replaced in the dockyard and is the apparatus operating normally, as it was formerly?

We believe that there is no danger, but until we really know where the missing unit is, that is difficult to say. We believe that it is still inside the dockyard, in the inner core, but we really do not know. The only danger would be if it were very close to a person outside. We believe that on the whole that is not now a danger. Other sources are being used in the dockyard for test purposes and they are now under strict regulation and control in the light of the findings of the recent review.

Is not the story of the missing isotope a remarkable one—that a radioactive unit can go missing for weeks in a high-security establishment? In view of the obvious and serious public concern, are not the public and the House entitled to more information and more reassurance than has presently been given in what is basically a handful of written answers?

With respect, I received the report of the board of inquiry, which is about five or six inches thick, only this week. I shall go up to Rosyth later today. I hope to reassure the public as much as I can. So far, the source has not yet been discovered. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the lessons which have been learnt from the disappearance are being taken to heart. Remedial action has already been taken by the port admiral and by the general manager.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent recent defence exercises and similar activities have been affected by the dispute in the Civil Service; and whether he will make a statement.

The selective action by non-industrial civil servants has hindered some defence activities, but neither training exercises nor essential operations have been interrupted.

Will my right hon. Friend be assured that whatever the consequences in increased disruption, his decision to send in the Navy to service the Polaris submarine "Resolution" will be supported by the vast majority of people in this country, who find it intolerable that the nation's defences should be put in jeopardy by the action of self-seeking civil servants? As the traditional loyalty of the Civil Service can no longer be relied upon, what action will my right hon. Friend take to safeguard the defence interests of this country for the future?

I assure my hon. Friend that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which we would allow the defence, including the deterrent capacities, of this country to be adversely affected in any way by such an industrial dispute. I do not wish to discuss the difficulties surrounding the dispute, but up to now they have not in any way affected operational capability in any area. I can assure my hon. Friend on that point.

Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that the Russians may nip in while the civil servants are on strike?

They nipped into Afghanistan.

Putting aside that nonsense, would not acceptance of a 7 per cent. wage increase, when the cost of living is rising by 12·5 per cent., mean a reduction of 5·5 per cent. in the civil servants' living standards?

The people of the United Kingdom are well aware, even if the hon. Gentleman is not, that there is a great threat from the ambitions of the Soviet Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) said, the Russians nipped into Afghanistan. There was a danger that they might nip into Poland. If the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) believes that the Soviet Union will sit back while we allow our deterrent guard to slip, that belief is misconceived.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has said will be welcomed by responsible Members on both sides of the House and that his reaffirmation that our deterrent will be maintained will be welcomed by many of those who are on strike? Is he aware that his affirmation of the loyalty of the Civil Service as a whole will again be welcomed by all hon. Members?

I thank my hon. and learned Friend.

If the Secretary of State is serious in his recommendation of the loyalty of the Civil Service—if he means that, and wants to show it—why does he not approach his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and tell her that two-thirds of those civil servants receive less than the national average wage and that all they are asking is that the Government go round the table and arbitrate on the claim which has been placed before them?

When one considers the settlements being made in the private sector now, one sees that this year's offer to the Civil Service is perfectly fair and proper. On this occasion it is not for me to go into the details of the present negotiations. However, the Civil Service knows well that the Government are prepared to consider with the representatives of the civil servants the long-term arrangements for Civil Service pay. With regard to the present claim, the Government's offer is reasonable and proper in the circumstances of the economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will enter into negotiations with the United States Government with a view to increasing the extent of British control over the use of cruise missiles.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied as to the effectiveness of current arrangements for consultations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America before any cruise missiles deployed in the United Kingdom can be fired.

I am entirely satisfied with the existing arrangements, which have applied to United States nuclear forces based in the United Kingdom for many years. Those arrangements have been made clear to the House on several occasions.

Do not those arrangements mean that there is no dual key system and no right of veto by the British Government over the use of cruise missiles? Does that not make the United Kingdom subordinate to American foreign and defence policy and mean that this country will be placed at risk? Is not the real position demonstrated by the reports of the resolutions of UCATT, the builders' union, for the East and West Midlands council, that it will be opposed to any work on the bases for cruise missiles, in the united determination and hostility to the missiles coming here and turning the United Kingdom into a parking lot for United States nuclear weaponry?

The House knows that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter. I assure him that no one is subordinate to anyone else. NATO is concerned with the collective defence of the West and with the maintenance of our freedoms in this country. The Soviet Union has greatly modernised its whole range of long-range theatre nuclear weapons. It is essental for the maintenance of peace that we also modernise our long-range theatre nuclear weapons. The arrangements have not changed in any way since the end of the war, when they were agreed between the then Labour Government and the United States.

Does the Minister accept that if he is completely satisfied with those arrangements he must be easily satisfied? He says that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is deeply worried. Has he not noticed that any demonstration against nuclear armaments now is always massive and that those demonstrations are becoming bigger? Does he not realise that a vast number of our people know that out of about 500 missiles we shall have about 170 or 180, and that there is deep feeling that the people who will decide to fire those missiles are not in this country but in the Pentagon?

I know that in the last war, before nuclear weapons were used, 50 million people died. I am also as sure as I possibly can be that the nuclear deterrent has maintained peace in Europe for the last 30 years. No Conservative Member would gamble away peace with unilateral renunciation of a deterrent which has worked.

Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom does not increase the likelihood of a nuclear attack, but decreases it? Will he reaffirm that the main aim of Her Majesty's Government is to preserve peace? Will he ensure that in all future publications which originate from his Ministry on the nuclear threat, the word "peace" is given the greatest possible emphasis?

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is exactly right. The purpose of the deterrent is to maintain peace. The idea that we have nuclear weapons with which to fight a war is an absurdity. That is not part of NATO's strategy and never has been. NATO is a defensive alliance concerned with the maintenance of peace. That is precisely what we are all concerned about in these difficult matters.

Can the Secretary of State say whether the proposed talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on the control of long-range theatre nuclear weapons will be held and, if so, when?

Talks have taken place already. As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the Soviet Union was unwilling to have talks on the subject until it was assured that we were proceeding to modernise our weapons. As we are continuing with the programme for the deployment of long-range theatre nuclear weapons, I believe that the Soviet Union will wish to continue arms control negotiations, and we shall join in the process. We believe that the nuclear arms race is madness and want to stop it, but we shall not do so by unilateral renunciation of weapons that have maintained the peace.

As the headquarters of the United States 3rd Air Force, which is responsible for the deployment of cruise missiles, is in my constituency, may I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome he was at Lakenheath on his visit with the United States Secretary of Defence? Does he recognise that although the United States Air Force could, with the British Government's permission, operate in time of need out of its own resources in the deployment of cruise missiles or other operational deployment, the civil servants' actions place it in particular difficulty? Will he therefore consult the United States Air Force about the problems that it could confront?

I was delighted with my most interesting visit to Lakenheath with Secretary Weinberger. Everything that we found was most encouraging. The part that the American forces play in this country is vital in the defence of freedom, and we should be grateful for it. If my hon. Friend is referring to the civil servants' disagreement over pay negotiations, I am sure that if there are problems they can be resolved. I was not aware that there were particular difficulties at Lakenheath, so perhaps my hon. Friend can send me details or speak to me later.

Does the Secretary of State recall that the acceptance by the European NATO powers of cruise missiles was on the specific basis that talks would take place between the United States and the Soviet Union? In view of the American Administration's remarks about detente being dead, is he satisfied that talks are being pursued with sufficient urgency—as much urgency as the deployment of cruise missiles?

At the NATO meeting in Bonn last week, Defence Ministers discussed the question, and it was reaffirmed that the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles must proceed alongside arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. The position has not changed, but it needs two to conclude a successful negotiation. Arms control limitation and satisfactory verification will not work unless the Soviet Union is prepared to play its part.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures available for the proportion of the defence budget spent on nuclear weapons; if he will seek to reduce this proportion; and if he will make a statement.

Our nuclear forces have made and are continuing to make an essential contribution to deterrence and, therefore, to peace in Europe. Over the last decade, these forces have taken up, on average, under 5 per cent. of the defence budget.

Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever the arguments about defence expenditure, expenditure on nuclear weapons is wasteful and dangerous, as he admitted in reply to the previous question when he said that they were unusable? Because of the Polaris replacement programme and cruise missiles, does he agree that over the next few years the proportion of the budget used for nuclear weapons will rapidly increase?

That is not the case. In the peak spending period for Trident in the late 1980s it is likely to take rather more, as Trident will take about 5 per cent. of the total defence budget, but that is not greatly different from the proportion that nuclear capacity has taken in the past. I do not agree that such expenditure is wasteful or dangerous. Anything that maintains peace is welcome, and nuclear deterrence has helped to maintain peace.

When my right hon. Friend was in Washington did he find that Americans of all parties unanimously agreed that if we went back on our decisions to acquire Trident or to allow cruise missiles to be stationed here it would be regarded as a virtually fatal blow to the Atlantic Alliance? Does he draw any conclusions from the fact that so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches seem anxious that we should do just that?

The widespread view in the United States and among our European allies is that when the Soviet Union is deploying one new SS20 missile per week and is far ahead of us in the modernisation of its long-range theatre nuclear weapons, to abandon the strategic independent nuclear deterrent that we have had for many years would unsettle the entire Alliance.

Will the Secretary of State again confirm that he believes that a localised tactical nuclear war is an absurd concept? As peace depends on a balance of nuclear weapons, does he believe that peace is in the balance?

A localised tactical nuclear war is absurd. Any nuclear exchange would be madness. The purpose of nuclear deterrence is to prevent a war and not to fight one. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends below the Gangway cannot understand that simple point. The policy has succeeded under all previous Governments. Why should we abandon it now?

With the Labour Party's enthusiasm to reduce expenditure on atomic weapons and to increase education expenditure, does my right hon. Friend believe that it expects the Russians merely to challenge us to a game of general knowledge?

I do not know that I can entirely follow my hon. Friend on that point, but, if it is any consolation to the Opposition, let me say that had nuclear weapons never been invented we might—I emphasise "might"—be living in a safer world. However, they cannot be disinvented, and we have to deal with the situation as it exists.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage in terms of value of defence procurement in 1980 was made in the United Kingdom.

My Department's expenditure with British industry amounted, at forecast outturn prices for 1980–81, to some £4·1 billion in 1979–80 and some £4·5 billion in 1980–81. In cash terms, it is nearly £1 billion more than the previous year. As regards equipment expenditure alone, over three-quarters went to national contracts placed with British industry in 1979–80, and I would expect it to be of the same order this year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department give preference to goods manufactured in the United Kingdom, even if it means a little extra cost? In particular, will he consider bringing forward the orders for boots and plimsolls from Bata and including Jetstream in an earlier part of the defence programme?

I am slightly at a loss about the boots and plimsolls. If we put aside collaborative projects, which represented about 15 per cent. of equipment expenditure, we have placed only about 2 per cent. of total equipment expenditure overseas in the past few years, which is relatively slight. I will need notice of the hon. Gentleman's question about boots and plimsolls. I do not know whch ones he is referring to.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that for a country such as ours, which relies upon all-volunteer Services, it is essential to make up for the small numbers in our Armed Forces by the very highest quality of our weapons systems? Will he, in this time of recession, do his very best in the year ahead to ensure that essential weapons programmes are not diminished?

Year by year, since the Conservative Government came to office, we have been spending more with British industry, as my answer indicated. I cannot undertake that every programme now in research and development will go forward into production, because if that happened we should be bankrupt, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall do our utmost to protect and encourage the defence industrial base of this country. I can give an absolute assurance on that, because it is in the interests of all of us.

I note the Secretary of State's answer. Will he now give an assurance that he intends to maintain the development and manufacture of Sea Eagle, in which we have an absolute world lead in guidance techniques and in which some 10,000 jobs are at stake?

As I said in my statement on the current year's expenditure, we decided at that time to keep the present development programme for Sea Eagle going. That is the present position. I am well aware of its very great importance to British Aerospace dynamics. It will be considered, together with many other programmes, when we review all these equipment programmes over the next two or three months. I cannot say more than that at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some 650,000 people in this country are employed directly or indirectly in defence-related industries? Does he agree that it would be a major disaster if my right hon. Friend were to accede to the siren calls from the Opposition for a reduction in defence expenditure?

The answer to that is "Yes".

With regard to Government procurement from the Royal ordnance factories and bearing in mind the fact that there have been 1,200 redundancies already this year in areas of high depression such as Birtley, Blackburn and Crewe, when may we expect the report from the study group set up to look at the work of the Royal ordnance factories, which we were led to expect would appear in February? Is the Minister aware that there is great disquiet in the ordnance factories due to uncertainty caused by delay in the appearance of the report?

The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was an internal Whitehall study of the position of the Royal ordnance factories. It is effectively prepared and ready, but I have not yet seen the final version. Until I have received and considered it, I cannot say anything about this matter. Nevertheless, I am well aware of the need to say something about the Royal ordnance factories, and indeed something about the dockyard report, as soon as we possibly can, to end uncertainty. That I undertake to do, but it cannot be for a few weeks yet.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what categories of personnel are currently stationed in the British bases on Cyprus.

The main elements of the Army in the sovereign base areas are infantry and armoured reconnaissance units and a small Army aviation detachment. The RAF has a helicopter squadron, a field squadron of the RAF Regiment and a hospital. Both Services also have headquarters, communications and support units.

I note that reply, but is the Minister aware that the continuation of these bases, whatever the agreements may be, depends upon the good will of the Government and people of Cyprus? Will he therefore give a firm assurance that the bases will not be used in any role involving the rapid deployment force, about which we hear so much from the Prime Minister and President Reagan?

As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal would be the first to tell the House, that is indeed the basis on which we continue to occupy what is, after all, sovereign territory of the United Kingdom. No official request from the United States has been received on the matter that he has raised.

Is there any reason why the sovereign base areas should not be used by other NATO forces?

At present the sovereign base areas are used entirely for British forces. As there are no NATO bases elsewhere in Cyprus there would be no movement through those bases without prior consultation with the Cyprus Government.

As the commander of 9 Signal Regiment in Ayios Nicholas is one of the members of the British forces, can the Minister tell the House the exact nature of the smuggling and Customs charges that have been brought against him and are shortly to be heard at a court martial?

I am not aware of the details of that matter. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question or writes to me about it I shall have the matter looked into.

Have not the Cyprus Government and people shown great good will towards us and our position in those bases, which are indispensable to European defence and to the whole Alliance?

Yes, indeed, they have. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of accidents to date involving Royal Air Force planes carrying nuclear weapons.

There have been no accidents involving Royal Air Force aircraft carrying nuclear weapons.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that on 26 July 1956 a United States B47 nuclear bomber crashed into a nuclear igloo at Lakenheath, in Sussex? Is he really saying that although the United States Government admit to 97 nuclear accidents since they have been stockpiling nuclear weapons, the record of the British Government is so remarkable that there has not been an accident of any kind?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my original answer he would have heard me say that there had been no accidents involving Royal Air Force aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. He went on to ask about the United States aircraft incident at Lakenheath in 1956. That question was answered by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Defence on 9 November 1979, when he said that no nuclear material had been involved in that accident.

In view of that answer, and bearing in mind that the Royal Air Force was the major nuclear deterrent for many years, flying round the clock, does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that there were no accidents says much for the way in which the Royal Air Force operates?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he remains satisfied that Trident costs can be contained within the billion figure already given and that the system can be delivered on time.

As I said in the House on 3 March, last summer we put the cost of the Trident system at some £4½ billion to £5 billion. Closer estimating depends on studies still in progress and decisions not yet taken, for example, on the preceise size and characteristics of the submarine.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that reports from the United States now suggest that costs are likely to rise by at least 10 per cent. and that the Americans themselves are in difficulty with their Trident programme and have not decided whether to go for a C4 or a D5? When shall we have definite statements on the type of Trident submarine that we intend to build and on when the updating of the estimates will take place?

The problems affecting the United States nuclear submarine building programme are different from the situation here. Decisions are pending in the United States about the future missile system that might be used, but they are not directly relevant to us. As our memorandum said, we are planning to go forward with a Trident I missile system. We are, of course, interested in achieving the maximum commonality with the United States, and we are considering these matters as we go along.

As it will be at least 10 years before the British Trident system is deployed, is it not a matter of extreme concern that the British long-range theatre nuclear capability, which contributes 50 per cent. of NATO's capability in Europe, should be allowed to wither on the vine? Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the matter once again?

Because we consider the matter to be so serious we are fully supporting the deployment of cruise missiles in this country. The Vulcan force might represent a large proportion of the long-range theatre strike force at present but I fear that beside the SS20 and the Backfire bomber, the equivalent Soviet systems, our systems are in the grossest need of modernisation. That is why we must go ahead with the cruise missile programme as soon as possible.

Is the Minister saying that the increased costs suggested in the United States will have no effect on the cost of Trident in Britain? If he is not saying that, how does he expect any increased costs in Britain to be accommodated? Will not the percentage expenditure devoted to nuclear weapons have to rise considerably above the figure postulated?

When I want to change the estimate of the cost of Trident from £5 billion I shall do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals and how many establishments, under the control of the Ministry of Defence, are engaged in production technology and related research.

Many defence establishments, including the R and D establishments, the Royal dockyards and the Royal ordnance factories, undertake some work which might be included within the general spectrum of production technology. However, it would be difficult to identify with any precision the number of staff working directly on production technology from within the wide range of disciplines which might conceivably be applicable.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the statistics show that Britain is spending only one-tenth of what is being spent in the United States, compared with 10 years ago when we were spending one-fifth of that amount? Since we have dropped from second to fourth in the league table, and since the programmes adopted by General Dynamics and Lockheed in the United States are expanding all the time, is there not an urgent need to discuss this matter with the Department of Industry, with a view to something better being done?

Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that discussions have taken place recently between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Industry and British Aerospace.

Is the Minister aware that the Marconi radar system factory at Bill Quay is largely under the control of the Ministry of Defence, in that it is dependent upon work on the Sea Wolf project? Will he give the workers at Bill Quay, including many of my constituents, an assurance that the Department will not go Dutch and thereby sacrifice hundreds of jobs on Tyneside?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy has heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has plans for further reducing the garrison in Gibraltar.

Army force levels in Gibraltar have remained constant for a long time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am glad to hear that? I trust that they will remain so. Does that mean that the garrison and the people of that fiercely loyal territory have a remaining and key role in the defence of the West, under the NATO umbrella?

That is true.

I accept what my hon. Friend says, but will he confirm that, as the Navy and the RAF are part of that garrison, the present strength of the Services will be maintained so long as restrictions against the Gibraltar people are imposed?

The forces will remain in position. When the border is open we expect that the surveillance unit of 11 will be withdrawn. Otherwise, the detachments will remain.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new co-operation is taking place with the United States Government to promote the further development of the Harrier aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet able to make a statement on the future of the Harrier.

During the recent visit to the United States by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, the United States Secretary of Defence confirmed that the United States Administration supported the development and production of the Harrier AV8B and that proposals were before Congress to fund it. In the light of those discussions we are hoping to reach decisions soon on the RAF's requirement for an improved version of the Harrier.

The House will welcome that. What prospect is there of producing the supersonic VTOL aircraft by the mid-1990s?

I hope that it will be possible, when the decision to which I referred in my answer is made, to include some reference to the advanced programme.

In view of the last half century's history of exploitation by the United States of the United Kingdom's aviation technology, when my hon. Friend reaches the decision will he please give top priority to maintaining an adequate research and development capability among the highly skilled people of Britain?

That is the importance of the advanced programme to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred.

How does the Minister compare the relative merits of the British Mark V with the United States AV8B? Does not the British version use less fuel, and have better manoeuvrability, greater speed and payload and a longer range? Is it not about time that the Government decided to do what they always say they will do, and buy British?

Before the hon. Gentleman nails his colours too firmly to the mast he should be aware of the considerable industrial benefits that will accrue to Britain if we are part of a programme involving almost 400 orders.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 April.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I shall have a meeting with the Prime Minister of Romania, after which I shall leave for official visits to India and countries in the Gulf.

Before the Prime Minister flies off to India will she take time to read the impressive and revealing document produced by journalists on The Scotsman newspaper, which shows that the Thomson organisation is putting the future of that newspaper in jeopardy by refusing to invest in the maintenance of high journalistic standards, and that it has siphoned off profits from Edinburgh for a substantial number of years?

I doubt whether I shall have time to read that before I go to India. No doubt the Thomson organisation has good reasons for doing what it is doing.

Will my right hon. Friend consider today the role that capital investment could play in helping us to overcome the recession? Is she aware that some projects in the public sector, such as the electrification of the railways, could earn commercial rates of return? Is it not possible to find a way of financing such profitable projects by private capital?

Many of us would like to devote a larger proportion of resources to capital investment, 'Out if that, too, is not to be a drain on the private sector it must be compensated for by a reduction in current expenditure. We cannot spend money on current expenditure and still have it available for capital expenditure.

Will the right hon. Lady look afresh at what was said by the Home Secretary yesterday about the terms of reference of the inquiry into the Brixton disturbances? In the light of her statement yesterday that she does not consider that unemployment is a primary cause of such difficulties, does she not think that the matter should be investigated by the inquiry?

The terms of reference that my right hon. Friend announced are very wide. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard Lord Scarman on the radio at lunchtime today. I gather that he thinks that they are wide enough for everything into which he would wish to inquire to make good his duties.

Will the right hon. Lady go further, particularly as she went much further on television last night, when she was prepared to commit herself to the proposition that high unemployment was not a primary cause of such troubles? According to the reports in the Daily Mirror today—there is no need to laugh, because people should face it—half of the unemployed people between the ages of 16 and 19 in Brixton are coloured. How does the right hon. Lady think that the country will have a chance to inquire into these matters? Will all the questions of how unemployment affects the situation really come within the scope of the Scarman inquiry?

The terms of reference give Lord Scarman sufficient scope to inquire into anything that he may wish to in connection with the riots that took place in Brixton. During my interview last night I was asked a straight question and I gave a straight answer. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand it.

Before my right hon. Friend leaves today will she accept the congratulations of most people—except those who really play for the other side—on deciding to arm and re-store the "Resolution" by means of naval manpower?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing those congratulations. The defence of this country must not be put at risk by the actions of a very small minority.

On her long flight to India, will the Prime Minister reflect on the result of last week's Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election? Does she agree that if election to Westminster had been by proportional representation the result might have been very different?

There were two candidates. The answer is "No, Sir".

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that all hon. Members will wish to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on nominating six new Labour peers? Does she agree also that, in addition to a need to strengthen the membership of the other place, there is a need to entrench its very existence against those who might seek to undermine and destroy that vital part of our parlimentary democracy?

The Leader of the Opposition made a request that I understood. I was happy, for once, to be able to agree to one of his requests. The other place is not in any danger from Conservatives Members. Those who wish to entrench its existence, or even that of a strong Second Chamber, should vote for our continuance in office.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to reflect on her views about the connection between unemployment and events in Brixton over the weekend? Is she not aware that some areas in inner London are seriously deprived, have a high incidence of unemployment and have appalling housing? Surely those factors cannot be divorced from the situation afflicting so many young blacks.

If the hon. Gentleman considers that unemployment was the only cause of the riots, I disagree with him. If he considers that it was the main cause of the riots, I disagree with him. Nothing that has happened with regard to unemployment would justify those riots. Lambeth has about the largest housing investment allocation in London, amounting to about £40 million this year. A large amount—about £9 million—is being spent on the partnership scheme. In addition, about 1,200 council houses have been vacant in Lambeth for more than a year.

asked the Prime Minister in what way she proposes to contribute to the International Year of Disabled People.

We have paid particular attention to the needs of the disabled in the last two Budgets, putting up the mobility allowance by 65 per cent. since we came into office and doubling the tax allowance for the blind. We are taking a large number of other initiatives to mark the International Year, and I will arrange for a full list to be placed in the Library of the House.

Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that as her contribution to the International Year of Disabled People—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Will she give an assurance that services to the handicapped will not diminish as a result of the recession? For the sake of brevity, will she say either "Yes" or "No"?

I have just given a reply that indicates that in some respects provision has increased.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the disabled people who work in the Enham Alamein factory in my constituency of Winchester are grateful, because they owe their entire working existence to the Government's lenient and compassionate attitude towards the survival of their factory?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The Government were able to undertake some public purchasing deliberately to help the disabled. We were glad of the chance to do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that her reply is only a half or a quarter truth? Since she came into office the severely disabled have been badly hit. The Prime Minister should tell the House that supplementary benefit discretions, invalidity benefit, social services and the Manpower Services Commission's provision for the disabled have been cut. The right hon. Lady does not seem to appreciate the severity of the impact of those cuts on the disabled. Will she undertake to read some of the many letters that have been received by the voluntary organisations?

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the amounts spent on the health services and on social security benefits he will find that they have increased in real terms. In addition, in the last Budget we were glad to be able to double the income tax allowance for the blind. That is a real gesture in this International Year of Disabled People.

Before my right hon. Friend leaves on her journey—which I hope will be enjoyable and successful—will she take time to discuss with the Home Secretary the problem of the disabled and elderly who were seriously affected by last weekend's disturbances in Brixton? Will she ensure that they are being properly looked after?

Many people in Brixton were seriously disturbed by last weekend's disorders. Almost all of them—with the exception of those involved—were delighted that the police did not withdraw but fully and bravely carried on their duty to restore law and order to the area.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 April.

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

As my right hon. Friend flies towards the Orient will she take stock of the growing feeling that our rating system is unfair, illogical, undemocratic, inadequate and out of date? At the very least, will she concede that the Government should bring forward a consultative paper giving all the possible options? In that way, a national debate could take place and perhaps a consensus could be reached about an alternative to the present iniquitous impost.

I agree with my hon. Friend's description of the rating system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the options. None of them is easy. We would consult before making any changes. I shall take into account my hon. Friend's remarks about a consultation paper.

Will the Prime Minister turn her mind once again to the subject of unemployment? There is so much of it that her mind should be permanently on it. Does she realise that since last week's Question Time—when there had been no fewer than five lobbies on unemployment in about five days—the great steelworks of Hadfields, in Sheffield, has announced that it is about to close? Is the right hon. Lady aware that once again there is a lobby outside the House of about one-fifth of the Hadfields' work force, who want to know what will be done about the private sector? Last December the Secretary of State for Industry told Members of Parliament for Sheffield constituencies that he would do nothing for the public sector but that he would do something for the private sector. Private sector firms are closing all over the country.

I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman standing up for the private sector. Perhaps we could stand up more for the private sector if we were having to spend a little less on the public sector. In the steel industry we are trying to form a number of companies into what is called Phoenix II, which is part British Steel Corporation and part private sector companies, such as Hadfields, with a view to its eventually coming into the private sector. That would be a great advance on the present situation.