asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans exist in the Ministry of Defence to review contracts, reduce manpower and to reallocate resources if disarmament talks reach successful conclusions.

We shall, of course, be ready to adjust our forward programmes if balanced, binding and verifiable agreements to reduce armaments and force levels are reached; but we cannot plan to do so until the nature and timing of specific agreements are known.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. What does he mean by "ready"? Do any of the contracts that are being placed contain contingency clauses that show that the Government have any faith that they genuinely want the disarmament talks to be successful?

I hope that the current round of disarmament talks will be successful. If they are, I do not foresee any problems in reducing the level and scale of our armaments in accordance with any agreement. However, it is not necessary to have in contracts clauses of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one hindrance to any agreements in the past has been the difficulty of verification, because the Soviet Government will not allow any inspection? Will he also confirm that the moment that the Soviet Government make such a move the British Government will enter into a verifiable and reasonable agreement?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his knighthood. I am sure that it is a delight to the whole House.

Was not our nuclear capability considered to be a basis on which we could attend the top table of negotiations? As we are not there, is it not about time that we dropped the humbug of pretending that we have an independent nuclear deterrent and got on with the job of disarmament?

It is no humbug that we have an independent nuclear deterrent; it is a question of fact. It was a question of fact when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Labour Cabinet. I assure him that the Soviet Union regards our nuclear deterrent not as humbug, but as real.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he foresees the possibility of further United States orders for United Kingdom military equipment in the current year beyond the contracts and orders already announced.

There are a number of United Kingdom equipments under consideration by the United States Government for use by their Services which we consider could fulfil their requirements. These are being discussed by industry and the Government, and we hope that this will lead to orders being placed. The exact timing of any orders is, however, uncertain, and I cannot predict which contracts will be signed this year. My hon. Friend will be aware that the past year was a most successful year for sales of British equipment to the United States.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he still detect a certain reluctance by the American authorities to order European and British equipment? Specifically, is he worried about the Hawk trainer orders, or is he confident that they will go ahead intact?

There have been some difficulties in Congress in recent weeks and prior to Christmas, but we are confident that the merits of the Hawk will win through. For some of the smaller British companies, not all pans of American industry are as aware as they might be of the working and implication of the 1975 memorandum of understanding. We are considering ways in which we can make this information and knowledge more widely available.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to decide whether to cancel the order for five 909 (GWS30) Sea Dart area air defence guided weapons systems to be fitted on type 42 destroyers.

Discussions are currently being held with a view to converting the existing contract for five complete 909 radars to one which will provide spares for support of the Fleet. Assuming that these are successful, I hope to be in a position to take a decision shortly.

I welcome the Minister's assurance, but is he aware of the difficulties that the delay is causing to the talented, experienced and highly skilled work force at both the Marconi plants in my constituency and how anxious those people are to know that their jobs will be secure as a result of firm orders in connection with this or other contracts?

I am indeed aware of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I assure him and the House that these decisions will not be unnecessarily prolonged.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the works team has built up a great fund of expertise and that it would be sad for the nation if that expertise were to vanish through lack of work?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the excellent record of the Marconi work force. That fact is being taken into account in our deliberations.

In view of the exchanges that have just taken place about employment for people on defence contracts, was it not rather naive of the Secretary of State to suggest that if disarmament talks were successful there would be no difficulty in fulfilling our side of the bargain? Is it not obvious that long-term planning is necessary if we are to enter into meaningful disarmament talks, including the meeting of the United Nations which starts in June in New York?

I was under the impression that my right hon. Friend had made clear his response to the previous question. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not follow it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in which countries or territories outside Europe the United Kingdom is maintaining military garrisons or units of the Armed Forces, whether Army, Navy or Air Force, including forces deployed in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

There are British military garrisons stationed in Hong Kong, Belize, Brunei and the Falkland Islands. There are small administrative, or similar, detachments in Bermuda, the Bahamas, Diego Garcia, Malaysia, Canada and Kenya. We also have small teams of training and advisory personnel on loan or secondment to the Armed Forces of about 30 countries outside Europe. We provide a guard for the United Nations Command in Korea.

Does the Minister agree that, apart from supporting United Nations peacekeeping operations, this world-wide scatter of military activities is a delusion of grandeur not shared by anyone outside the Tory Party? Would it not be more sensible to deploy the resources at home for education and health and recreating jobs?

It is easy to say that health, education and so on are important, but if we neglect our defences and those of our allies, as a former Labour Secretary of State for Defence said, we shall be left with nothing but a heap of cinders. The garrisons to which I referred are in countries for which we have direct responsibility. Most of the other countries to which I referred have very small numbers of British personnel—perhaps two or three—who are there for particular reasons, such as looking after our training needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that certain factors—such as long-term strategic considerations, Service morale and humanitarian obligations to the people of the territories concerned—have to be divorced from the cold statistics of the MOD balance sheet? Will he suggest to our right hon. Friend that one instance of this is HMS "Endurance" and our demonstrative will to defend our interests and those of the population of the Falkland Islands?

There is a later question on the Order Paper on this subject. I ask my hon. Friend to wait for that.

What proportions of our GDP are spent on NATO defences and on other commitments? Do we not spend more on our NATO commitments than any other member of NATO?

The answer to the hon. Lady's last question is "No". We spend a lower proportion than the United States. The total cost of the garrisons to which I referred is about £60 million a year. The cost of the other elements, which are very small, is much less.

Does not my hon. Friend's last answer show the enormous contribution that we are making to the maintenance of peace on a world-wide basis? What is our contribution to the United Nation's forces in the Cyprus area, where we have a substantial commitment and do excellent work?

I did not refer to Cyprus because Cyprus regards itself as being inside Europe. We make a valuable contribution there to UNFICYP. We have about 4, 000 of our own forces in the sovereign base areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with progress towards standardisation of weapons and joint weapons procurement within the Western European Union.

There has been substantial progress, but we must aim towards a greater degree of co-operation within Europe in weapons production and development. We are working with all the bodies concerned, and I hope that the WEU colloquium, to be held in London at the beginning of February, will also make a useful contribution.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that if there were more joint production and procurement of defence equipment the prospects, for example, for a European armoured fighting vehicle industry or for the European military aircraft industry would be infinitely better and that many more jobs would be available in this country and in other European countries than under the present half-hearted co-operation?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Many people share his views in what I call philosophical terms. There is a danger that almost too many bodies are involved in trying to turn his general ideas into reality. The independent European programme group is one body that we feel holds out the best hope of achieving the type of results that my hon. Friend desires.

Does my hon. Friend recall that four or five years ago within the European Community a token entry was made for a research and development fund to be set up for helicopters? Will he undertake to have another look at that to discover why it died and, if possible, to resuscitate it, because clearly it is a matter in which we have a great interest?

I remind my hon. Friend that the Italian and British industries are working together closely on a future replacement for the Sea King helicopter. That is largely covering the aspect that my hon. Friend has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has prolonged any previously announced timetable for the purchase of equipment for the Armed Forces.

Timetable changes in a large and diverse procurement programme costing up to £6 billion will always be necessary, but the main features of the programme envisaged in the Defence White Paper—Cmnd. 8288—stand.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the trend of questions by the Opposition, service in the Armed Forces provides valuable jobs for those who wish to serve their country and that the equipment they use provides valuable jobs in our industry? Does he realise that there is uncertainty in our defence industries arising from the stream of releases about cancellations and prolongations? Will he therefore take an early opportunity to restate the position on defence procurement and thus reassure both industry and those who serve in the Armed Forces?

My hon. Friend is right. The professionalism and dedication of our Armed Forces are admired throughout the country, and we should be proud of them.

How many aeroplanes are available for the air defence of the United Kingdom? How does the Secretary of State's recent announcement regarding Tornado affect the air defence variant of Tornado? If that is likely to be delayed, how does he square that with the oft-repeated charges made by the Conservatives in Opposition that our air defences were grossly inadequate?

The air defence version of Tornado is hardly affected by the reduction in the peak deliveries from just over 60 aircraft to 44 aircraft. That reduction will affect the strike version of Tornado more than the air defence version, which may be affected by a month or two, but little more than that. Like the hon. Gentleman, I regard the air defence of the United Kingdom as of the greatest importance. We have considerably enhanced the situation and agreed to run two Phantom squadrons into the 1990s.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the 1980 White Paper contained an intention to purchase new mine-sweepers for the Royal Naval Reserve? Two years later there is still no sign of those mine-sweepers, which are desperately needed to replace the ageing fleet. Wile n will they be produced?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Royal Naval Reserve urgently needs those mine-sweepers. I hope to begin placing the orders in the next financial year.

Is it not a fact that, thanks to the Secretary of State's last announcement, the bulk of the bill for the Tornado programme will have to be paid in the late 1980s? How does the right hon. Gentleman envisage paying the immense bill not only for the 385 Tornado aircraft on order for the Royal Air Force but for the ridiculous, nonsensical and expensive Trident project? The bulk of the expenditure on that project will be due at about the same time.

The bulk of the expenditure on Tornado is being met now. In the next financial year the Tornado programme will cost the Ministry of Defence budget about £1, 000 million. The peak expenditure profile will occur in the next few years. Expenditure will be tailing off by the mid-1980s. The Tornado programme as a whole is infinitely more expensive than the Trident programme as a whole. We are talking about a total programme cost of about £11¼ billion for the Tornado. That huge programme is proceeding successfully.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recession has caused his Department's budget problems, because of the early delivery of a wide variety of equipment, and that the flexibility of his budget should be increased to allow him to encompass the problems that he has mentioned? The example of Tornado springs to mind.

My hon. Friend is right. The principal. problem facing the defence budget is that, due to the recession, Ministry of Defence contractors deliver equipment earlier than they would otherwise. That has to be fitted into a tight annual cash limit. More flexibility from one year to another would enormously benefit the management of defence resources and make it much more efficient. More flexibility would be a great plus towards looking after the programme.

Has there not been delay in equipping and maintaining our forces because of the takeover and closure of factories? For example, has not Polaris maintenance been delayed because of the closure of Laurence Scott and Electromotors, Manchester?

I am not aware of any such delays. Polaris is constantly on patrol and has been for the past 15 years. I am not conscious of any problems such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If he has a particular point to make, perhaps he will draw it to my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to continue to deploy Royal Naval vessels in the Indian Ocean; and what plans he has to deploy naval task forces outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation area.

There are no immediate plans to end the Royal Navy presence in the Indian Ocean. As announced in the White Paper, Cmnd. 8288, we intend to resume this year naval task group deployments outside the NATO area.

I welcome that commitment to an overseas presence, but, given Admiral Gorshkov's statement that the Soviet Navy can win wars by its presence, without firing a shot, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Royal Navy's role is to preserve the peace as much by its presence as by fighting a war?

I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Task groups are deployed to demonstrate Britain's capability to defend its interests and those of its allies outside the NATO area as well as to enhance relations with friendly countries in those parts of the world.

What further military development of Diego Garcia is proposed by the United States of America, which has a heavy concentration of forces in that area? Is the role of British personnel stationed there solely that of a support force? Will the Minister note that many of us would greatly deplore an increase in the British commitment in that part of the globe?

Those remarks fall well outside the purview of the question. I understand that our interests are very small.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the British public are profoundly puzzled and surprised by the proposed sale of HMS "Invincible", which is the most modern and valuable of the Royal Navy's defence assets? According to experts on both sides of the Atlantic, since that class of carrier was first ordered, the threat to our energy supplies, to the Cape sea route and to transatlantic communications in a period of tension—let alone in a period of war—has grown. Therefore, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will reconsider the proposed sale?

Again, such points are outside the purview of the question. However, if my hon. Friend studies the White Paper he will find that whatever the Government are planning can be found in it.

Is it not true that vessels are deployed in the Indian Ocean, not for strategic reasons, but to satisfy the Prime Minister's delusions of grandeur and to help President Reagan with his rapid deployment force and the base on Diego Garcia? As the Government have made such drastic cuts in the Royal Navy, would it not be better to deploy those vessels in the Eastern Atlantic, instead of sailing them aimlessly round the Indian Ocean?

As I said, the original deployment was the direct result of the war between Iraq and Iran and the necessity to protect British and allied interests if the Straits of Hormuz were closed. Although that risk has decreased, it is judicious to keep ships in that part of the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to place new orders for aircraft with British Aerospace during the next 12 months.

Yes. The timing and nature of orders will, however, depend on our current consideration of our spending plans.

I had hoped that my hon. Friend would be a little more forthcoming. Does he agree that British Aerospace makes a major contribution to Britain's defence and employs tens of thousands of people? If we purchase aircraft from British Aerospace, will it not set a fine example for exports? The industry has a record that is almost second to none in exporting its goods. Will my hon. Friend assure the work force that orders will be forthcoming to maintain not only the production line, but research and development at British Aerospace?

I am glad to endorse my hon. Friend's support and praise for British Aerospace. He will know that at the Woodford and Chadderton division the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance conversion programme is continuing, together with the airborne early-warning programme, and a good amount of civil work is being done. Like my hon. Friend, I hope that the signs of interest being shown by foreign buyers in those aircraft will prove fruitful. In that way we can sell more of those aircraft and possibly open the production line. That would be a highly satisfactory state of affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance he is giving to British Aerospace in its search for private funding of the P110 project.

Through ministerial and other contacts the Government are helping British Aerospace to promote the P110 with potential customers who, it is hoped, will contribute to the cost of this private venture development.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the critical importance to the Warton division of British Aerospace of an early decision on the P110 project, the so-called Jaguar replacement, because if a decision is not taken soon about whether it should be privately or Government funded the research and design teams there will effectively be broken up? That will be very detrimental both to British Aerospace and to Britain's manufacturing capacity.

My hon. Friend knows that British Aerospace has said that it will continue to fund the project at least until midsummer and possibly to the end of this year. I agree with him about the urgency of attracting some foreign interest so that the money necessary to fund the development is forthcoming.

Does it ever disturb the Minister that he is involved in the immoral and destructive pursuit of armaments manufacture? Does he not believe that he might be better employed generating improvements in the National Health Service?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents who work in the British Aerospace factory at Warton would take it somewhat amiss that the comments that he has made to me can be equally applied to them. It is a fine company and a fine work force doing an important job to safeguard Britain's defences.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Ferranti Ltd., which employs several thousand people in and around my constituency, regards the success of the project, in which it has an interest, as being of the utmost importance both in terms of technological development and employment?

We are very much aware of Ferranti's involvement in the project and of its excellent contribution to this and other projects.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the first cruise missiles to be sited in Berkshire.

On current plans, the first cruise missiles are due to be deployed at RAF Greenham Common in Berkshire by the end of 1983.

In working on that programme, will my hon. Friend reject totally some local views to the effect that, by virtue of the siting, the county of Berkshire will in some way become a more vulnerable target? Will he remember that the vast majority of local people believe that the best way in which to avoid a third world war is through the robust maintenance of our defences?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his robust support of the project. I welcome what he says about opinion in Berkshire in general. The deployment of the cruise missile will help us to deter war, which is the main objective of our military policy. As to the vulnerability of Greenham Common, my hon. Friend will he aware that in times of tension or war the cruise missiles would be deployed away from the base.

Is the Minister aware of the picket of the Greenham Common base by a group of women who, like me, never wish to see the cruise missile deployed there or elsewhere? Is he also aware that Newbury district council is trying to stop the picket by evicting people from that piece of wasteland? Can he assure us that neither he nor the American Department of Defence has put any pressure on Newbury district council?

I am aware of the presence of that group of women on the site. The land is common land and does not belong to the Ministry of Defence. The fate of these people is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that when those missiles are deployed at RAF Greenham Common there are no circumstances in which they can be fired without the consent of the Government?

I confirm that fact.

Are not the constituents of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) right to be worried, because was not the cruise missile designed to fight a limited nuclear war in Europe? Does not the very concept of a limited nuclear war make it more likely that there will be a nuclear war? Does the Minister agree that the main priority should be conventional armaments instead of cruise missiles?

There are many people in Britain and in other Western countries who are worried about the existence of nuclear weapons. One purpose of the Ministry of Defence is to explain the facts about nuclear weapons to counter the many mis-statements of fact that come from other sources. One remark made by the right hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he is suffering from a misapprehension. The missiles are not intended to fight a limited nuclear war in Europe. They are intended to show that the United States of America is closely tied in to the defence of Western Europe, thus adding to the deterrent effect presented to any potential aggressor.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department will spend on public relations in 1981–82.

This year we expect to spend just over £3·5 million on public relations in the Ministry of Defence. That covers the salaries of Ministry of Defence public relations staff throughout the world, overheads and a wide variety of press briefing and press facility work both at home and abroad.

Is the Minister aware that expenditure on defence is inevitably a matter of political controversy? Can he identify the proportion of his public relations budget that is being used to justify his present expenditure policies? For example, is he aware that in recent months the Royal Navy has been carrying out a series of presentations that, according to my constituents, have borne a close resemblance to party political broadcasts? Can he justify those presentations?

If the need to defend Britain adequately has become a matter of controversy between the parties in the House, that is a matter of great regret, because it used not to be a matter of controversy. We used to agree that a satisfactory defence policy was the prime objective and duty of any Government. The purpose of our public relations effort is to explain the facts of our defence policy. It is obvious from some of the questions from the Opposition that that is a necessary task.

Would it not greatly help public relations if some Opposition Members, instead of constantly criticising Her Majesty's Forces, praised Britain's defence effort?

That would be a welcome change. I have no doubt that the vast majority of British people welcome the activities of our Armed Forces and believe that they are doing an excellent job.

Can the Minister tell us how much of the £3·5 million will be used to explain to the public and the world why, in 1982, the Government are refusing to disclose the documents and evidence about the traitors Burgess, Maclean and Philby, on the ground that those public schoolboys' activities may damage us now? Is it not a cover-up of public schoolboys?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a question for me.

Will my hon. Friend consider spending some of that money in carrying out a public relations exercise in Gibraltar to try to increase the morale of the people there, which was badly deflated by his Department's decision to close the dockyard?

We shall be explaining, as we have already explained, our policies on Gibraltar. Within the next few days I shall be receiving a deputation from Gibraltar.

Would it not have helped public relations concerning the closure of the Gibraltar dockyard if the Minister or one of his colleagues had been to Gibraltar and had had the guts to talk and listen to the people there?

The right hon. Gentleman always gets his timing wrong. Last time we discussed this he urged me to go immediately to Gibraltar. I pointed out that Sir Joshua Hassan was about to arrive and that if I followed the right hon. Gentleman's advice we should cross in mid-air. As I am about to receive a trade union deputation from Gibraltar later this week, if I followed the right hon. Gentleman's advice exactly the same would happen again.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has now received on the Trident programme and the siting of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received in connection with the Trident programme and the plans to locate cruise missiles in the United Kingdom; and if he will list these representations in the Official Report.

Since taking up my present appointment I have received about 210 letters and seven petitions concerning the Trident missile programme and about 370 letters and nine petitions concerning cruise missiles. These came both from individuals and from representatives of various groups.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that those representations are based, first, on the fact that Trident will be between 15 and 30 times more powerful than the current Polaris missile, making it an instance of further nuclear escalation, and, secondly, that the cost is soaring out of all control and is now approaching or exceeding the £11·25 million cost of Tornado? Will he confirm that the representations are also based on the fact that cruise missiles will be entirely under the control of the United States, with both keys in the hands of the United States? Does he agree that that, together with the fact that they cannot be verified, is a major cause of concern?

The representations cover a wide range of genuine concerns. They are not related to any specific issue. The hon. Gentleman does not yet know the cost of the possible option of a Trident 2 missile, but I can tell him that his figures are widely exaggerated and that the Tornado programme will be far more expensive than the Trident programme. With regard to cruise missiles, there is a long-standing arrangement, which has survived two or three Labour Governments and which we have not changed, covering the decision-making process with regard to the release of nuclear weapons.

With regard to the representations that my right hon. Friend has received, many of them from East Anglia, may I congratulate him and his colleagues in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence on the way in which they have tackled this problem throughout the country? Now that they have won the intellectual argument in respect of nuclear weapons, will he go further and refute some of the nonsense now being talked about nerve gas at American bases in this country?

On the latter point, it is utterly untrue that the Americans intend to deploy chemical weapons forward, and the rumour has been denied by the American Department of Defence.

Did the Secretary of State see the recent interview with David Greenwood on "Panorama"? In the light of that interview and of the fact that we are likely to take the more advanced missile, will he give a firm assurance that, compared with the original Government estimate of £5 billion, the final estimate will not exceed £10 billion at current prices?

The hon. Gentleman will have to await the announcement of our decision. When we announce the decision, we shall give the figure. I saw the interview with Mr. Greenwood. Some of the figures presented in the programme were greatly exaggerated. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the Government's decision. When we announce the decision, we shall give the up-to-date figures.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the declaration of nuclear-free zones by certain local authorities, and the belief that the siting of cruise missiles makes this country in some way more vulnerable to attack, are based on a fundamental misapprehension that any future conflict would not be fought against industrial and population targets as well as military targets? Would not those people be better employed in informing the Soviet Politburo of their nuclear-free zones so that it may agree to them?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The declaration of such nuclear-free zones is a fatuous way to proceed. I cannot understand how anybody could imagine that the Soviet Union or any other nation would take the remotest notice of an area being declared a nuclear-free zone. With regard to the suggestion that Europe should be declared a nuclear-free zone, my hon. Friend will know that if the Soviets removed their SS20 and other missiles out of Europe they could hit exactly the same targets from the other side of the Urals. The whole concept therefore makes no sense and, indeed, will tend to encourage rather than to prevent war.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Now that the official figure for unemployment has exceeded 3 million, is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that she has brought so much despair to so many families in the United Kingdom? Is she proud of the fact that she and the Government have created more havoc in the British economy than the German High Command in the whole of the last war? Is she proud that, to carry out this ill-fated monetarist experiment, she has had to increase taxes? [Interruption.] Is it not time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to finish his question, just as everybody else must be heard this afternoon.

Is it not time for the Westminster Ripper to join the unemployment trail, pack her bags and go?

In response to the hon. Gentleman, of course we all deplore the tragic fact that unemployment has reached 3 million and so many people who want to work find themselves without a job. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, Conservative Members also feel very strongly about this.

When will the right hon. Lady resign? Does it have to be 4 million?

I find the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his reference to the German High Command utterly distasteful, particularly for those who suffered or lost relatives in the last war.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the industrial action taken by railwaymen at King's Cross to intimidate newspapers and to influence what they print is a direct threat to freedom? What action does she think that British Rail should now take?

No one in this country, whether a member of a union or not, must be allowed to jeopardise the freedom of the press. I condemn any action, whether by trade unionists or others, which tends towards that end. All industrial action loses jobs. It does not gain them.

As the Budget Statements and the Budgets of the right hon. Lady's Chancellor of the Exchequer have contributed so much to the terrible figures published today, will she give us an assurance that at the meeting of the Cabinet on Thursday there will be no more cuts, no more deflation, no more monetary madness and no more of the measures that have contributed to this terrible disaster for the nation?

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that I cannot say what will take place at Cabinet next Thursday. Cabinet agendas are not revealed. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman only that the meeting will be interesting, as usual. I know that encouraging figures are never of any interest to the right hon. Gentleman or to Labour Members generally. However, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will note that our average record on inflation is now better than the record achieved throughout the previous Labour Government's term of office. Inflation is coming down, and it is vital that it should if we are to have a soundly based recovery.

Cannot the right hon. Lady appreciate that when the figures of unemployment reach a total of this nature it is an insult to the unemployed to talk of the encouraging figures presented to the nation, especially when most of her figures are misleading?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".] Does she not understand that the productivity figures are not back to what they were at the end of 1979? Does she not understand that the inflation figures are not back to what they were when she came to office? Does she not understand that on all these fronts she has taken measures that have pushed up the total of unemployed? Now we are told by the Secretary of State of Employment that we have not reached the peak. What is the peak that the right hon. Lady and her Government are heading for?

If the right hon. Gentleman studies the productivity figures for the right measure, which is productivity per man-hour, he will find that they have now reached an all-time record. If he will kindly tell me what other figure he challenges, I shall try to respond to him. As for inflation, the right hon. Gentleman's average record in 1974, his first year, was 16·1 per cent. whereas ours was 13·4 per cent. During his second year of office his average record on inflation was 24·2 per cent. while ours was 18 per cent. In his third year in office his average rate of inflation was 16·5 per cent. and ours is 11·9 per cent. That is the answer—we are better on all counts.

Does the right hon. Lady understand that, with her unemployment figures, 32 people are chasing every vacancy? Will she tell us what the figure was when she took office?

The right hon. Gentleman will find the vacancy figures in the Department of Employment's press notice. The number of vacancies—the number of jobs now being notified to job centres—is increasing. The stock is greater than a year ago. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman brought down unemployment temporarily at the cost of reflation, which increased unemployment later. If the right hon. Gentleman is really interested in the figures—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister should not fight for a hearing. I have said that before. If we cannot have free speech in this House, we shall get it nowhere.

She ought to fight for the unemployed.

Order. The Prime Minister is entitled to be heard.

If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in ascertaining the facts, he will have observed that the total population of working age will increase by about 1 million during the period 1980 to 1985. We had a peak of schoolchildren reaching school leaving age of 16 years this last year of 920, 000. Of course these demographic factors have to be taken into account in judging the tragic figure of unemployment. The only real answer to the right hon. Gentleman is one that he will not accept, and it is that the consumer decides whether jobs go.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

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

In view of the delays that certain education authorities have suffered—notably Manchester—in receiving decisions from the Secretary of State for Education and Science on education reorganisation plans, will the right hon. Lady tell us when the parents, pupils and staffs of schools in Croydon that will be affected by reorganisation plans may expect to receive an answer to the submissions that were lodged with the Minister on 6 August?

I am not quite certain to which schools or to which sort of notice the hon. Gentleman is referring. I take it that he is referring to a section 13 notice under the Education Act 1944. If he is, there has inevitably to be a two-month period for representations to be made to the permanent secretary. The representations then have to be evaluated by the Secretary of State. They must then be discussed before a decision is reached. The hon. Gentleman must put the precise case to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to welcome the moves made last week by the Bank of England, the Bundesbank and the Dutch to make a combined effort to bring interest rates down? Will she encourage them to do it again this week? Will she also encourage the American authorities to join in this venture?

The move to lower interest rates last week by a number of the banks in Europe was very welcome. It would hardly have taken place had we run the high deficit that Labour Members wish us to run. It is a fact that fear of the United States having a high deficit is holding up interest rates here.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 January.

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

On the day when unemployment is announced to have passed 3 million, is the right hon. Lady aware that official Government returns show that there are over 5, 700, 000 persons living in poverty on supplementary benefit, that it is officially estimated that there are a further 1, 100, 000 living in poverty but not claiming benefit, and that a majority of these are the unemployed and their families? Is she not ashamed that under her regime no fewer than one in eight of the British people are living in poverty, which is the highest figure for 50 years?

The hon. Gentleman will be the first to know that every time social security benefits are increased more people are eligile to come into benefit. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's definition of poverty is based on those who are able to draw social security benefits. If he studies the record of the last Labour Government, he will find that increases in benefits usually led to an increase in the number of people eligible to draw them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the public concern at the increasing number of offences of rape? If, as I understand it to be the case, my right hon. Friend has ordered a review of that problem, could she state what form it will take and how long it will take to be completed?

We have considered the recent cases very carefully. Hon. Members will know that there was an advisory group on the law of rape, chaired by Dame Rose Heilbron. That was an excellent group. Most of its recommendations were implemented, with the unanimous approval of both sides of the House. Furthermore, building on that, the Criminal Law Revision Committee is now carrying out a comprehensive review of sexual offences, including rape and allied offences, and the penalties for them. [Interruption.] In October 1980 it published a working paper and invited comments. Those comments are still being received. The committee's intention is to produce a report that places the law on rape in the context of sexual assaults. That refers to the law on rape in England and Wales. The law is different in Scotland. I have thought it wise to attempt to discuss the recent events and cases—[Interruption.]—which, although they may not have given cause for concern to Opposition Members—[Interruption.]—have given cause for concern to many others.

Order. The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) has no right to try to shout anyone down from a sedentary position.

I thought it wise to discuss with Dame Rose Heilbron recent events and the concern that people feel following her report of 1976. I am happy to say that she has agreed to come to see me. We shall discuss those matters to see whether any further steps are required. With regard to the law in Scotland, there is a possibility of a private prosecution. Therefore I can say nothing further about that.