asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for copies of his Department's brochure on cruise missiles to be distributed to all households in the United Kingdom.

My Department produces a number of publications, including at present two on cruise missiles. I believe it useful that they should be circulated widely and we already send them to all the organisations and individuals who ask for them.

In view of the Government's obsession with referendums, would it not be useful if the ludicrous document that provides answers to questions such as "Are nuclear weapons safe?" could be given as wide a circulation as possible? Would it not also be useful if people were enabled to express an opinion whether General Haig should be given the opportunity to start a demonstrative Third World War by firing one of those missiles from British soil?

That document answers many of the questions that we find are of concern to those who write to the Ministry of Defence. The question "Are nuclear weapons safe?" is one of the questions that have been put to us.

Are they?

It would be useful to circulate to every household in the kingdom the letter written by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), and his fellow spokesmen on defence on the Opposition Front Bench, in which he said to the trade union leaders that a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament and the other policies adopted by the Labour Party would threaten the prospects of general disarmament and endanger jobs in Britain's defence industry.

Will my hon. Friend reaffirm the clear message in that document that more widespread deployment of nuclear weapons, and theatre nuclear weapons in particular, does not signal a change in attitude towards their use? Will he confirm that they will still exist as a deterrent, to be used not as a first line of defence or in aggression, but as weapons of last resort?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There have been many misunderstandings, which have been to some extent fed by the CND. The cruise missile is in no sense and could not be a first strike weapon. It is a defensive weapon, as are our nuclear weapons.

Is it not a fact that Holland, Norway, Denmark, Canada and other countries will not deploy those missiles in any circumstances? What would happen if the Government went ahead and tried to deploy those weapons in Britain and West Germany, despite the demonstrations throughout Europe? What resistance does the Minister expect?

For once the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his premise. Holland and Denmark have not refused to accept those weapons. A decision has not been made. Italy has decided where they are to go, and the Germans have accepted them in principle.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will count as Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve training periods any time spent by specialists of the RAPC and REME upon necessary training correspondence courses, which may not be carried out in a drill hall or as part of a normal Territorial Army exercise or weekend's training.

I have asked for a study to be made examining the implications of that idea, which I view favourably.

I sincerely thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I assure him that it will be welcome in the Reserve Forces. But can he assure the House that he will press his Department and those in authority in the Reserve Forces to take a flexible attitude towards training and physical presence for training parades that befits a modern Reserve Army?

The Territorial Army, together with the other Reserve Forces, seeks to use modern means of communication and education. I take on board my hon. Friend's point, and I shall see whether we can meet him on it.

Will my hon. Friend give details of what advice has been given to the TA so that it may co-operate with the civil power in the event of a nuclear emergency?

That question falls so far outside the original question that I would wish further notice of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out in detail the increased numbers of nuclear weapons installed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since acknowledgement of a nuclear parity between the Warsaw Pact and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation alliances at the conclusion of the SALT II talks.

The SALT II talks were concerned only with strategic nuclear weapons, and it is only at this level that broad parity was acknowledged as existing. Since the conclusion of the SALT II talks the number of United States warheads has remained approximately the same. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, has greatly modernised and increased the accuracy of its strategic systems by the deployment of new types of ICBM up to the full SALT II limits, increasing its total number of warheads by almost 1,000.

If the Government are unwilling to join any nuclear disarmament talks until such time as they can proceed on the basis of parity between the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO, are not the implications of the Minister's answer quite horrifying from the point of view of the Western world? Are not the Government thus saying that they are not prepared to negotiate ever? If the escalation is now in step, side by side, there will never be parity, so are not the Government in effect saying that they do not foresee any time when they will enter into meaningful talks with the Soviet Union about nuclear disarmament?

It is certainly very serious to find that the number of strategic warheads deployed by the Soviet Union has increased by about 1,000 and that its modernisation programme for long-range theatre nuclear weapons has gone ahead in the way that I have described. The hon. Gentleman did not ask me about disarmament talks. The Government fully support and have taken part in the preparations for the theatre nuclear disarmament talks that open on 30 November. We have played a leading part in that and we have discussed with the United States and our other NATO Allies what the opening bid should be, in an attempt to achieve arms reductions. We are determined to achieve a reduction in arms.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most awesome and fearsome aspects of Soviet preponderance is the extra megatonnage, the superiority in throw weight, power and destructiveness of the Soviet warheads compared with those of NATO?

My hon. Friend is right. Since SALT II the United States has more or less stood still, while the Soviet Union has increased the number, accuracy and throw weight of its warheads.

Does not the Minister's answer about the build-up of strategic nuclear stockpiles on both sides highlight the need for disarmament talks now that SALT is in abeyance? Would it not be sensible for Britain to take the initiative and announce the postponement or cancellation of the Trident programme, which is just one more escalation?

The Trident programme has nothing whatever to do with the talks that are to open on 30 November. The talks concern long-range theatre nuclear weapons, while Trident is a strategic system. The Trident programme represents the absolute minimum force required for an independent deterrent. I hope that the strategic arms reduction talks between the United States and the Soviet Union will open next year. We are playing a major role in trying to get those talks going and to make them successful.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the West—in particular the United States—has been meaningfully involved in detente, the Soviet Union has been building up its theatre capacity to an alarming level?

Taking capability as a guide, I estimate that in theatre nuclear weapons the Soviet systems currently outnumber ours by about four to one.

Is not the most important aspect that the Secretary of State has not so far brought out the fact that, despite non-ratification of the treaty, neither side has undertaken any developments that would contravene SALT II? Does he agree that it is therefore vital that the Soviet Union and the United States should avoid any irreversible action and, preferably, take early steps to consolidate this regime?

The hon. Gentleman is right. So far as one can judge, neither side has breached SALT II. I agree, too, that we must get SALT started again. The talks have to be between the United States and the Soviet Union, but we shall do our best to encourage the United States to open the negotiations as soon as it is ready to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the submarine reactor and bow and stern sections ordered or to be ordered for the Trident programme will be usable for hunter-killer submarines in the event of the cancellation of Trident.

The great majority of the structural steel and the contents of the bow and stern sections for the new Trident submarines, including the reactor, could be used in a hunter-killer nuclear submarine with relatively little modification.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that that is so for both the C4 and D5 systems? Does this also mean that there is considerable flexibility in the date of cancellation for the Trident programme, in that great losses would not be involved if it were cancelled at a later stage?

We still have not finally settled the size and shape of the submarine. In answer to later questions I shall explain to the House that I hope to make a statement about this in due course. It is primarily the centre section of the ballistic missile submarine that is broadly irrelevant to a hunter-killer role. The bow and stern sections and most of the sonar and electronics would be relevant to an SSN programme. Clearly, the further the Trident programme goes down the line, the more difficult it will be to draw back or to change it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on those contracts for defence equipment which may involve production at Marconi Radar Systems Ltd.

Several defence equipment decisions are impending which could bear on production work at Marconi Radar Systems Ltd. They will be taken as early as is practical in each case. The situation of this company has been fully represented to Ministers, and I was very glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) were able to bring a delegation to see me.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy and his efforts in this matter. Does he recognise the crucial importance of maintaining employment and scientific knowledge in those two plants in my constituency? Does he appreciate the dreadful effect that the uncertainty is having upon both management and workers there? When will he be able to give a decision on any of the pending contracts?

I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the factors that he mentioned form a major part of the considerations. With regard to the heavyweight torpedo and type 909 radars in Sea Dart, decisions will be made when current discussions with the company are satisfactorily concluded.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his constructive meeting with representatives of the company and Members of Parliament was much appreciated? Does he agree that the company's extremely skilled workers have served the Armed Forces and the Crown very well over many years and that that service deserves recognition by the Government?

I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I agree also that that recognition has been accorded in the past. We now have to take account of the best way to proceed with these alternative systems.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consultations he has had with the United States Administration regarding the siting of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend discussed this subject with the United States Secretary for Defence and other NATO Defence Ministers at Gleneagles on 20 and 21 October.

As a number of these missiles are likely to be sited in the county of Berkshire, part of which I represent, will my hon. Friend, without further consultation, inform the United States Administration that the vast majority of the people there, while warmly supporting constant diplomatic efforts to find ways to achieve multilateral disarmament, believe that the siting of these defensive weapons in their county strengthens the Government's hand in that resolve?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and he is absoluely right. As my right hon. Friend said, we are vigorously dedicated to the support of multilateral as opposed to unilateral disarmament.

Does the Minister agree that if Britain and the West take unilateral decisions on the cruise missile there will be no incentive whatever for the Russians to reduce the number of SS20s?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and what he has said is becoming increasingly recognised in the country.

As these weapons are mobile, should not the views of the people of Berkshire perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Swindon?"] Swindon is far too near to Greenham Common for my liking. As the previous Secretary of State for Defence said, no one is safe in a nuclear attack, particularly if cruise missiles are sited in Britain, because, as they are mobile, they will make the whole of the United Kingdom a target.

I would not dream of taking the opinions of the people of Berkshire with a pinch of salt. The hon. Gentleman's latter remarks are precisely the reason why our efforts are dedicated to preventing war. We are not, as some people allege, planning to fight and win a nuclear war, because we do not believe that there would be any winners. Even if we were to adopt the suggestions of the unilateral disarmers, the United Kingdom would still be a target in any future war because of its industrial and political importance as well as its geographical location.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the annual report of the Devonport dockyard, he remains satisfied that the proposed closure of the Chatham dockyard can be carried out without serious risk to the strength of the nuclear hunter-killer submarine fleet.

Yes, Sir.

Do not the Devonport report and my hon. Friend's parliamentary answers confirm that the first nuclear refit and refuelling to be undertaken by Devonport will have taken nearly four years—on HMS "Swiftsure"—which is twice as long as it should have taken, compared with Chatham, which has carried out seven nuclear refits and other nuclear work besides? Does my hon. Friend accept that the Chatham nuclear facility is essential if we are to maintain the SSN fleet, which he and my right hon. Friend say is essential to the Royal Navy? If so, will he at least consider retaining the Chatham nuclear facility with a much reduced work force, perhaps under private management, rather than recruiting equal numbers of people at Devonport and Rosyth?

I am sorry, but I cannot accept my hon. Friend's proposal. I have discussed this matter carefully with him, and he knows that I have investigated it with great care. I am satisfied about the capability of the yards at Devonport and Rosyth to cope with our refitting burden. The refit of the SSN currently at Devonport has taken a long time, but my hon. Friend knows that the start was delayed for more than a year by an industrial dispute and that there has been another industrial dispute this year. But that latest industrial dispute affected all the yards, not only Devonport.

Can the Minister confirm reports in today's press that the Government are discussing with the United States Government possible modifications in the naval cuts announced by the Secretary of State during the summer?

I cannot confirm those reports. Our position is expressed in the White Paper issued in the summer.

I appreciate the Minister's embarrassment at the continual barrage of attacks upon him and his colleagues about their decision to close the dockyards. Does he not recognise that all the evidence about the future refit capacity of the Royal dockyards indicates that they are likely to undermine the credibility of a policy based on hunter-killer nuclear submarines? Is it not about time that the Government listened to advice—even the advice of Conservative Members—to reconsider a policy that makes no sense in relation to the future of the fleet?

The hon. Gentleman referred to a barrage of attacks, but, as he knows, it is not only members of the Government Front Bench who are sometimes questioned about their policies. I have looked into this matter with great care. I have recently visited Rosyth, and I shall soon be visiting Devonport. The more I learn about the subject, the more I am satisfied that we shall have adequate capacity for the refitting of our nuclear submarines.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has considered placing a mandatory obligation on the Procurement Executive to include small firms in the list of those asked to tender for Ministry of Defence contracts.

Small firms are always included in Ministry of Defence invitations to tender for contracts appropriate to their capacities and lines of business.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the United States about 20 per cent. of Department of Defence procurement comes from smaller firms, arising mainly from the fact that these contracts are set aside especially for that sector of business? Will he consider a similar form of positive discrimination in favour of small businesses so that they might receive a fairer share of Government business?

I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's views on United States practice in this regard. We shall certainly look at what is done there to see whether we can learn anything from it. However, the Government believe that it would be as wrong to discriminate in favour of small firms as it would be to discriminate against them. That view is shared by the CBI in relation to the access of smaller firms to Government contracts.

In pursuing this procurement policy, will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that Scottish industry gets the maximum opportunity to tender for this work in view of the inordinately high level of unemployment in Scotland at the present time?

Yes.

Even if my hon. Friend will not accept the suggestion of a mandatory obligation on the Ministry of Defence, will he reconsider the circumstances in which small businesses that seek to be subcontractors to the major defence contractors can obtain defence standard 05–24, as that would enhance their prospects of obtaining vital subcontract work?

Quality assurance approval is a complicated matter. Perhaps I can write to my hon. Friend on this question and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

Will the Minister comment on the reported placing of a contract for submarine sonar equipment with a French firm when British companies say that they can do the job equally well and cheaper?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that that issue is important enough to merit prior notice. Now that he has raised it with me, I shall be glad to look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident missile project.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if there has been any increase in the anticipated cost of Trident since the decision to go ahead with this missile system was taken; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme in the light of the decision to make use of a more advanced design of missile.

As I have already made clear to the House, we are still studying the final configuration of the United Kingdom Trident force. I shall announce our decisions, and their cost implications, in due course.

Which estimate will be nearer—the £5 billion given by the Secretary of State in July 1980 or the £8 billion forecast by the Liberals when we debated this subject? Does the right hon. Gentleman not see this massive diversion from conventional equipment for our Forces as being likely to lower the nuclear threshold and pose the danger of the suicide option of nuclear first use referred to by General Haig?

When I am ready to make a statement, the hon. Gentleman will have an answer to the first part of his question. The Trident force will represent approximately 3 per cent. of the total defence budget over the 15 years that we are planning to build it. I cannot believe that that represents a sharp, adverse impact on our conventional programme.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Is it not a fact that various estimates, up to £8 billion, are now being predicted for the cost of this project? Is there no limit to its expense? If there is, will the Secretary of State tell us and also say why this project should not be subject to cash limits when projects of local authorities, health services, and other desirable enterprises are being held back by the Treasury?

There is a limit to its cost—

What is it?

It is subject to cash limits in the same way as every other project. I cannot remember the third part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Does not the fact that President Reagan has now decided to go ahead with the Trident II missile scheme mean that if we go ahead with our present insane policy Britain will also have to purchase Trident II? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is his view and, if so, how much that will add to the original estimate?

The reason why we are looking at the matter now is due to President Reagan's decision on D5. As I made clear when I appeared before the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence, the capital costs of D5 will be higher than those of C4. It is by no means certain that the through-life costs of the D5 system will be more than those of the C4. In due course, I shall be able to enlighten the hon. Gentleman.

As unemployment in the United Kingdom climbs towards 4 million, and in the United States towards 10 million, does the Secretary of State seriously think that the public on either side of the Atlantic will tolerate this nuclear megalomania?

No one is tolerating any such thing. We are trying to maintain peace.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the American decision to make Trident missiles available, and the cost at which they were made available, was dependent upon an undertaking on our part not to diminish our conventional forces, particularly our naval watch in the Atlantic? Will he therefore now tell us whether our American allies are satisfied that we are carrying out our part of the bargain and whether any reconsideration has been given to maintaining our anti-submarine carrier force and escort forces in the Atlantic?

The United States Administration are keen that we should modernise our independent strategic nuclear deterrent because they believe that its possession by us is an added guarantee for the maintenance of peace. With regard to cost, the additional resources that the Government have already agreed to put into defence—namely 3 per cent. extra in the next few years—more than absorbs the cost of Trident over the next few years. Therefore, with the increased defence spending that we have agreed, there is no reason for our conventional forces to be adversely affected thereby.

Does the Secretary of State accept, and will he confirm what is being widely reported that the British missiles will cost up to £5 million each more than their American counterparts?

I have never seen that report, and it sounds to me another bit of nonsense.

As it has been calculated that the cost of Trident is approximately 2p per day per head of population, is not that an insurance worth paying? Does my right hon. Friend agree that even though some people may think that Trident is expensive, it is nowhere near as expensive as the war that it will help to prevent?

My hon Friend is entirely correct, although I am afraid that I cannot verify his arithmetical calculations.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the political likelihood of the cancellation of Trident before the programme is anywhere near completion in itself makes a strong case for a reconsideration of the programme?

I am confident that the Trident programme will be seen through to completion. It is the policy of this Government, and therefore it will go forward under us. If, by some grievous misfortune for the country, another party were to form the Government during the next 15 years, I have not the slightest doubt that, as in the past, that party when it gained that power would confirm the independent strategic nuclear deterrent, as the Labour Party has always done in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United Kingdom will have a physical veto on the use of any United States nuclear weapons stationed, planned to be stationed or projected to be stationed on United Kingdom soil.

In the case of the United States forces already based in the United Kingdom, it has been made clear to the House many times that the use in an emergency of the bases concerned would be a matter for joint decision between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, in the light of the circumstances at the time. Those arrangements have been regarded as entirely satisfactory by successive Governments. They will also apply to the ground-launched cruise missile force to be based here starting in 1983.

I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not properly understood the question that I tabled. I want to know whether we in this country have a physical control over whether those missiles are used. Is my hon. Friend aware that if we do not have that control—if we do not have a finger on the trigger—future Soviet perceptions might result in the annihilation of the United Kingdom?

I think that my hon. Friend is talking about a finger on the safety catch, not on the trigger. If he is asking whether the two-key system applies to the missiles, it does not. That was our decision, taken in the interests of saving costs.

Is it not true that the formula that Ministers keep trotting out was agreed between Attlee and Truman in 1951? Nuclear weapons were not envisaged under the agreement. Is it not also true that, because there is no physical veto by the United Kingdom Government, the United States could use a cruise missile in a demonstration nuclear explosion, as was explained by the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Haig?

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the arrangements for a joint decision were first agreed between Mr. Attlee and Mr. Truman. They were reconfirmed by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Truman, and they have been regarded as satisfactory by every Government since then.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cruise missiles, like the B47s, the B52s, and the F111s, are the symbol of the indissoluble bond between the free peoples of North America and ourselves, and are evidence of the determination of our ally, the United States, to put our joint security at a high level of priority?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would only add that it is proposed to install cruise and Pershing missiles in other countries in Europe as well as in the United Kingdom, at the request of the Europeans.

Why does not the Minister answer the supplementary question put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? Is it not a fact that what is concerning millions of people in Western Europe at present is the contradictions in United States policy, as enunciated by President Reagan, General Haig and Mr. Caspar Weinberger? Is the Minister aware that the people of Western Europe do not share the Government's complacency about these matters?

I am not at all complacent about these matters. The arrangements have been regarded as satisfactory by successive Governments. President Reagan's remarks were entirely consistent with the NATO strategy of flexible response, which aims to deter Soviet aggression by making it clear that NATO has a credible response to any attack, whatever its level. That is where the relevance of cruise missiles comes in.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure on the Royal Navy in 1979–80; and what is the projected outturn for 1981–82.

Accounting is now by defence-wide Votes rather than by Service, but the Estimates attribution of expenditure on the Royal Navy, including those services provided by the Royal Navy for the Army and Royal Air Force, was £2,354 million in 1979–80 and £3,622 million for 1981–82.

Can the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that that level of expenditure will begin to provide a more adequate defence against mines than is currently provided by just one hovercraft, one support ship, three Hunt class minesweepers and 29 TON class vessels with an average age of more than 25 years?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the White Paper published in the summer and the subsequent debates he will be reassured about our intention to improve our mine hunting and mine sweeping capability.

Bearing in mind the massive deployment of Soviet submarine forces in the North Atlantic and the relentless build-up of Russia's Backfire nuclear strike bombers in a maritime role, how do the Government justify on military grounds their decision prematurely to retire from service 34 ships of the Royal Navy?

Time does not allow me to go over the debates that we had on that subject in the summer, but my hon. Friend will recall that we stated our intention to keep 50 destroyers and frigates in service in the years up to 1986.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current expenditure for defence and the proposed expenditure for future years.

Planned expenditure this year and for 1982–83 and 1983–4 was set out in the Government's public expenditure White Paper in March and it was announced in June that the Government had taken a firm decision to plan for 3 per cent. real growth for a further two years.

As the Government are cutting back on social services and aids to manufacturing industry and are compelling local authorities to hold referendums if they want to increase local rates to deal with the problems of the homeless and the disabled, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Government should have a referendum before increasing defence expenditure still further?

The opening sentence of the White Paper published in the summer made it clear that the first duty of any British Government is to safeguard our people in peace and freedom. That is why we are devoting extra resources to defence.

In the light of that reply, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no further cuts in defence expenditure during the lifetime of the Government?

We have already published our plans for the future in the public expenditure White Paper, and they stand.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of pension paid ex-gratia to pre-1950 Service widows.

The current rates vary according to rank from £25·05 a month for the widows of corporal or below to £44·87 for widows of warrant officer class I. In accordance with the announcement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Social Services on 11 March, the rates will rise by 9·06 per cent. on 23 November.

Is my hon. Friend aware that more than 13,000 elderly and deserving widows are deeply grateful to the Government for granting them pensions—a task which the previous Government said was administratively impossible?

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's remarks, except that I am advised that about 17,000 widows have benefited from our having carried out that electoral promise.

Will my hon. and sympathetic Friend give fresh consideration to the representation of war widows at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I am sure that he will see what my hon. Friend has said.

Roberts asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received opposing the siting of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom, the Trident missile programme, and the siting of the neutron bomb in Europe; if he will list these representations in the Official Report; and if he will make a statement.

Since my right hon. Friend took up his present appointment he has received about 350 letters and eight petitions concerning cruise missiles; about 200 letters and seven petitions concerning the Trident missile programme; and about 50 letters concerning enhanced radiation warheads. These came from individuals and representatives of various groups; it would require disproportionate time and effort to prepare a full list.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that recent mass demonstrations reflect the growing fear of millions of people all over the world about the growth of nuclear weapons? Will he reconsider his previous answers and realise that if Britain were prepared to abandon these weapons and to persuade some of our allies to do so, there would be every economic incentive for Russia to follow suit?

I repeat that the objective of the defence policies of NATO is to prevent war. I recognise that there is increased anxiety on the part of some people about the growth of nuclear weapons. That is why we are dedicated to supporting multilateral, as opposed to unilateral, disarmament. However, I must add that some of the fears that have been generated are entirely without foundation. The CND has not helped the situation by publishing a leaflet, which I have here, containing no fewer than five major mis-statements of fact, all of which are inclined to increase people's fears without good reason.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

This morning I held meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with President Burnham of Guyana. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Will the Prime Minister have the opportunity today to consider the survey that has just been published by the Association of Directors of Social Services, which states that, contrary to Government statements, the services for Britain's most vulnerable groups—the disabled, the poor and the elderly—are deteriorating? If not, will the right hon. Lady undertake to study that survey and, if it is correct, try to lift some of the burden of our present economic miseries from those least able to bear them?

There are many, many things on which the Government and local government wish to spend extra money. We have to decide on the priorities, and it is for local government to decide its priorities. I am sure that many local authorities would include the services to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred among their priorities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many cheap electrical goods are being imported, at political prices, from Eastern Europe, which is damaging to the home industry and particularly to the Hoover factory at Perivale in my constituency, where many people are being put out of work? Will the Government do something about that, because there are no reciprocal arrangements with the countries concerned?

As my hon. Friend knows, the European Commission can take anti-dumping action if evidence is placed before the Community. I am sure that if my hon. Friend has evidence he will place it before the Community. At the moment, the Commission is inquiring into two matters—imports of domestic refrigerators and cylinder vacuum cleaners. I hope that the reports will be published soon.

On the question of the extremely damaging cuts referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), has the Prime Minister had a chance to consider the statement made by the spokesman for the vice-chancellors of our universities, who say that the cuts proposed by the Government could maim, cripple and butcher our university system? Will she undertake to review all the proposals for such cuts?

I believe that this year's grant to the University Grants Committee is about £900 million. It is, and always has been, for the committee to decide how that shall be allocated. It has been a matter of pride among all Governments that they do not interfere with the allocation of the money. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that a future Government will interfere with the allocation of money to the universities, he is taking a retrograde step.

Will the right hon. Lady note that the spokesman for the vice-chancellors says that the present cuts will mean a reduction of 10,000 in the number of students coming to our universities each year? Does she not think that that, in the circumstances of heavy youth unemployment, is an act of barbarism?

The right hon. Gentleman neglects to observe that extra money has in the end to come from private sector industry or from people who are making a profit, and that the more we take away from them the less they are able to have capital available for expansion. It is that sector that will provide the extra jobs in the future.

What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to try to bring about a closer and more harmonious relationship in policy towards the Middle East and Israel between ourselves and the American Government?

It is the constant object of our efforts to work for a comprehensive peace settlement that will recognise the right of Israel to live in peace behind secure borders, and the right of the Palestinian people. That was the object of the Venice declaration. We are now hoping, with the United States, to find grounds upon which we can agree to participate in the Sinai force, to try to ensure that that part of the agreement between Egypt and Israel is implemented in accordance with its terms.

Will the Prime Minister try to find time today to reflect further on the Long spying case? Is not one of the lessons of that case that if Ministers do not have to answer to Parliament for particular matters, they are likely to be told less about them? Is it not, therefore, important that we devise secure mechanisms by which Parliament can make Ministers answerable on these matters?

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the speech that I made on the Blunt debate, at the extensive statement I made on the Hollis debate, and at the long answers that I have given to questions, he will find that most of the answers to his questions to which it is reasonable to give answers are there.

The right hon. Lady knew all along.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.

Does the right hon. Lady accept the possibility of the super Powers settling their differences in a nuclear war confined to Europe? If she does not, will she take this opportunity of making that clear, so that Mr. Reagan may understand the facts, since he has recently made statements on this issue?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said a few moments ago, we regard it as our first duty to see to the defence of Britain, in accord with our NATO Allies. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to some remarks which might have been made across the Atlantic about NATO's options. It would be irresponsible if NATO had not many options for many circumstances. What they are I am not prepared to say.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the judgment that has been given in respect of the GLC supplementary rate? Will she commend the initiative of Bromley council, which alone among the London boroughs has stood up against the rapacious demands of the GLC, and will she lend her support to its continuing efforts on behalf of London's hard-pressed ratepayers?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Bromley council on its initiative. I saw the judgment, which will have been greeted with great relief by many people. Whether it will be a matter for appeal I do not know, but it will now be for the GLC to consider what action it will take in the light of that judgment.

Does the Prime Minister recognise the danger of the judges arrogating to themselves political decisions? Although it may be one thing to say that the council has exceeded its statutory power, it is quite another to say that, even if it had the statutory power, it acted unreasonably in balancing the interest of ratepayers and fare-paying passengers? In such circumstances, the judges were making political decisions and not judicial decisions.

I wholly reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. Judges give decisions on the law and the evidence before them. They do so totally impartially.

As it is the official Opposition's policy—as, indeed, it is the opinion of Mrs. Shirley Williams of the Social Democratic Party—that private education should be abolished, will my right hon. Friend today take the opportunity to remind the taxpayer that that policy would cost the British taxpayer about £2,000 million?

I do not believe that it is possible to abolish private education and still keep a free society. The sum that my hon. Friend mentions is roughly the capital cost that would fall upon the taxpayer. In addition to that, there would be a substantial revenue cost of about £400 million a year.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 10 November.

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

How does the Prime Minister reconcile her whitewash reply to me yesterday with the fact that The Sunday Times has the names of two more traitors who may be revealed this coming weekend, one of whom apparently expressed surprise at not being prosecuted after confessing to MI5? How many other members of the old boy network of spies and traitors must the media reveal before the Prime Minister comes clean and accedes to my demand for a full-scale public inquiry into this Establishment cover-up?

These matters, all concerning the same group of people, have been investigated time and again, and I have been very forthcoming in the amount of information that I have tried to give to the House, while still retaining the interests of security.

While I welcome the Prime Minister's full and frank statement yesterday, may I ask her to confirm whether investigations were made about Mr. Leo Long's activities between 1946 and 1952, when he held important and more senior positions in intelligence and had access to more sensitive information than he had prior to 1945? Or are we relying on his own words as a self-confessed Soviet spy?

I gave a very full reply about Mr. Long and I would not wish to add to it without further very careful notice of a specific question.

Although the Prime Minister has gone a considerable way in these matters, will she accept that the official statements and events in the period of the Philby and Blunt exposures, and now the Long exposure, have caused increasing public concern? The various cover-ups, the non-prosecution of treachery, the continuation of people in office, and the special privilege for special persons, are matters that should not have been tolerated. Will she therefore agree;—I go no further than this because it is an important matter that should not be dealt with loosely—that importance must be attached to the nondisclosure concerning other persons who have committed offences or who are security risks? Will she agree that: this applies to those of the Blunt and Long school who may be in office?

I believe that most of what the hon. Gentleman has said would be covered by the reply that I gave previously. I have tried to be as frank as I possibly can with the House, but it would be totally wrong for me to name names of people knowing that we could not mount a prosecution against them, or that their confessions had been obtained in a way which would render those confessions inadmissible. That is the honourable course to take, and I believe that it is the right one to continue to take.