asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, since his answer of 3 March, Official Report, c. 155, Her Majesty's ships and aircraft have been involved in operations to suppress piracy, and, in particular, that committed against boat people in the Gulf of Thailand and elsewhere.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State conveys his apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for not being here today. He is attending a NATO ministerial meeting in the United States. The answer to my hon. Friend is "No, Sir".

Does it not accord with our tradition and duty as a maritime power to take part with the forces of Commonwealth, allied and other maritime powers in the prevention of mass murder on the high seas, about which the Red Cross has given horrifying reports?

All signatories of the Geneva convention are pledged to co-operate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that, subject to parliamentary approval, we have recently pledged £110, 000 following an appeal from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list the new orders for naval ships that he expects to place with British shipyards during the financial year 1982–83.

Orders will be announced as they are placed following the satisfactory conclusion of contract negotiations with the shipbuilders. However, we are currently initiating tender action for a mine countermeasures vessel, a nuclear-powered fleet submarine and the first batch of a new class of fleet mine sweepers with a view to placing orders in the coming year.

Is the Minister aware that cuts in naval shipbuilding are already causing many redundancies at Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton? Is he further aware that this, combined with the proposed closure of Portsmouth dockyard and the cuts in naval training establishments that are to be announced today, will have very damaging effects on employment prospects in Southern Hampshire? Is this not a very high price to pay for Trident?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that this is part of the price, as he describes it, of Trident. His points are, of course, legitimate and important constituency aspects concerning Vosper Thornycroft. As I have told him from this Box, we are continuing and even re-doubling our efforts to give what support we can to Vosper Thornycroft in its efforts to obtain export orders that we think will be highly beneficial to that company.

Can the Minister announce results of the review of training and shore establishments supporting the fleet?

Stemming from the changes outlined last June in Cmnd. 8288, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is announcing today, in answer to a written question, that we propose, subject to the normal consultation procedures, to close certain naval shore training establishments in the year up to and including 1986, as follows. In the Portsmouth area, HMS "Phoenix", HMS "Excellent, " HMS "Vernon", the Fraser gunnery range and, at Torpoint, HMS "Fisgard". Hon. Members whose constituencies are affected are being kept informed, as are Naval personnel, and a copy of a message to the Fleet setting out these proposals in detail has been placed in the Library.

Before the Government dismantle the Royal Navy even further—another 4, 000 job losses were announced on the tape today, and the Minister should have had the courage to come to the House to make a statement as it affects so many jobs and the Royal Navy—should not the Government rethink their naval strategy? As I understand it, their whole defence strategy is based on the fact that if there is a war in Europe it will last for only a few days. Does it not make much more sense to assume that that war, should it occur, would be a war of attrition and that the Royal Navy would have to play a very important part, especially in the Eastern Atlantic?

If that is the right hon. Gentleman's understanding of defence strategy, he ought to read again Cmnd. 8288. Questions of courage do not arise, because the decisions announced today are simply pursuant to the policies outlined in last July's White Paper.

Returning to the question on the Order Paper, when will my hon. Friend's Department expedite orders for the type 23 frigate? My hon. Friend will recall that that was promised to us when we were told that we would no longer have re-fits of the old-type frigates.

As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, it would be wrong to rush ahead with the type 23 frigate. We are now actively pursuing its design and trying to agree on the exact configuration of the ship. Like my hon. Friend, we want to get ahead with all dispatch, but it would be wrong to do so until the design is finally agreed, and that is what we are waiting on now.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just been told that a subject that affects defence is to be revealed in a written answer. As the Minister mentioned that fact, will you allow questions on the subject, because it appears that his assurance that hon. Members whose constituencies are affected will be kept informed—we all know that that means that there will be a written statement of his intentions—does not allow us the kind of freedom to question on behalf of our constituents that we should prefer?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's point further to the point of order? This is Question Time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall delay putting my point of order, if it would be more suitable to do so later. I have given you notice that I wish to raise this point of order.

I must try to guard Question Time for other hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper. I shall take a point of order on that matter at the end of Question Time.

Does the Minister recognise that the decision to axe naval vessels and put off orders for conventional vessels for the Navy has blown a massive hole in British Shipbuilders' corporate plan, and that it will cause thousands of redundancies in naval yards on the Tyne, the Clyde, and elsewhere? Does that not make nonsense of what he has just said about jobs not being threatened by what his Department does?

I cannot imagine that what the hon. Gentleman has just said follows from the answer that I gave earlier. I said that certain shore establishments have been closed—

Question No. 2.

In answer to the original question, which related to new orders that had been placed, I enumerated those orders, and they are quite considerable.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to assess the results of the adventure training scheme; and, in particular, whether any increase in its scope may be needed.

Applications for places on the scheme will be accepted from 29 March, and the first courses will begin shortly after Easter. I shall be keeping the scheme under review as it progresses through the summer. It will not be possible to increase its scope beyond the 7, 000 places already announced.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this excellent scheme, if properly handled, will be very popular among young people? Will he ensure that adequate resources will always be available for it? If the demand proves sufficient, will he expand it?

As I said, I do not think that we can expand it this year, because the scheme is designed to mop up spare capacity of our training machine. For the same reason, I cannot give any assurances about the future beyond this 12-month period.

What is the point in spending about £1½ million for the MOD to provide adventure courses for young people when Government economic policy is forcing local authorities to close down their adventure centres, and the Outward Bound Trust cannot even fill all the vacant places at its centres, like the Lochiel centre in Scotland? Is it not a bit thick that the Fuhrer of this new youth army is to be none other than the mad-cap toy soldier, the well-known Lieutenant-Colonel John Blashford-Snell, who seems to have spent much of his Army service on paid tours all over the world on exploits that are of questionable value to young people, especially unemployed and under-privileged young people who should get priority in any Government-sponsored training schemes?

Colonel Blashford-Snell has done a remarkably good job in conveying many of the virtues and disciplines of the Armed Forces to many under-privileged young people over many years. I hope that the opportunity that we are giving him now to repeat that will be welcomed. This is a charitable gesture, to deal with a short-term problem in a way that I believe will be of great benefit to about 7, 000 young people.

Will my hon. Friend look at the way the scheme is being run, because it seems as though priority is being given to public school cadet forces, rather than to the deprived boys for whom the House understood that the scheme was introduced? Is that not a deviation from what was announced as the original intention?

My hon. Friend is right on a point of detail, in that the original statement said that cadet forces would be given priority. However, I have given instructions that the combined cadet force, which already has similar training, camps and other facilities, shall not be given priority. Priority will be given to the Army cadet force, the air cadets and the Navy cadets. I hope that I have put the matter straight.

Will the Minister tell us what priority he will give to children or young people from under-privileged backgrounds in city centres? Will he give an undertaking that they will be put to no expense, nor be expected to meet any charges for equipment, uniforms, running shoes, football boots, games equipment, and such items?

We have said that the scheme will be free and that we shall provide travel, food and clothing that is suitable for training. I have kept a close eye on maintaining a balance. It is a difficult subject. For example, if we took young people only from under-privileged areas, the scheme would not be as useful as a more balanced scheme. There will be central control, with the idea of trying to get a reasonable balance between the under-privileged and better-off areas of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated total cost of Trident at current prices, taking account of all modifications adopted since the original announcement and of the effect of inflation since that date.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether a decision has yet been reached on the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has now completed his consideration of the future configuration of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet in a position to say whether he intends to buy the C4 or D5 version of the Trident missile.

I refer the hon. Members to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 11 March.

Is it not true that a cost escalation of 50 per cent. during the last two years is well on target for the enormous over-shoot that is so typical of defence projects? Is it not true that, in time, Trident will require new warheads and new motors on its missiles, as in the case of Polaris? Is it not the case that the costs of those items—probably £2 billion to £3 billion—are not yet included? Is not Trident, in any case, thoroughly bad value for money, because even a marginal impact on total defence costs will sooner or later lead to significant reductions in conventional defence capability, which is our real weakness?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He will recall that Polaris came in on cost, and there are good reasons to hope that the same thing will happen with Trident. The Americans have considerable experience in the development of missiles. We are to get a fourth generation missile from the Americans. The previous missiles came in on time and on cost. We have considerable experience in the construction of submarines. Our SSN programme has shown very little cost escalation in real terms, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's fears have any basis.

As the world already possesses 50, 000 nuclear weapons with a destructive capacity of 1 million Hiroshima bombs—something that should be understood by everyone in the country—are the Government right in spending about £8 billion to £10 billion on Trident, money that will come from future Naval Estimates? Is that not why the written answer that is to be made later today talks about a cutback in naval conventional weapons?

The announcement that is to be made later today has nothing to do with Trident.

Absolute rubbish.

The defence review last year dealt with the problems at that time, when Trident was costing practically nothing. In the Naval Estimates we budget for defence purposes. We have a separate programme for Trident. It makes sense that the Navy should manage that programme, because the Navy will man Trident. It does not follow that if we did not have Trident the naval programme would be any different.

Is it not clear that Trident is by far the most effective strategic deterrent and that, so long as these abominable and dreadful weapons exist, the United Kingdom Government alone are ultimately responsible for the defence of these islands and cannot shuffle off the responsibility to anyone else?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition's policy of abandoning our strategic nuclear deterrent would not enhance the prospect of peace. Rather, it would diminish that prospect.

Is is not hypocritical for the Government to talk about peace and disarmament when, by buying the D5 Trident missile, they are fuelling a new nuclear arms race? That missile is at least 15 to 30 times more powerful than the Polaris missile that it replaces. Why is Trident so much more accurate and why is greater accuracy necessary unless there has been a change of policy from mutually assured destruction to targeting the missiles against military targets with a view to using them as first-strike weapons?

The power of our Trident force will bear roughly the same relationship to the Soviet Union's strategic nuclear deterrent, when it is introduced, as Polaris bore towards the Soviet Union's strategic nuclear forces when it was introduced. It is certainly not NATO's policy to go for a first strike, as the hon. Gentleman implied. Still less is it the Government's policy to go for a first strike. It would not make sense and would be impossible. We have chosen Trident for reasons of commonality with the United States. Trident is simply the most cost-effective successor to Polaris that is available.

Is it not the case that the present estimates for the Trident programme include a figure for on-going research? Does my hon. Friend agree that that could be a factor in escalating the final cost outcome?

With respect, that is not accurate. We have a fixed figure for the cost of research and development. That is one of the most important aspects of the agreement achieved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Will the Minister confirm that the Trident programme involves spending £3 billion to £5 billion at dollar prices in the United States and thus squandering money that would be better spent on providing properly independent conventional forces in Britain? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, as the policy involves a minimal nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom until the mid-1990s, it puts us in hock to American economic and foreign policies and makes us wholly dependent upon the United States for the next 15 years?

If we buy Trident from the United States there is no reason why we should be in hock to that country's foreign policies. [Interruption.] We have not been in hock before and there is no reason why we should be. The world scene shows that the purchase of weapons from another country does not put the purchaser in hock to the seller. It would not put us in hock any more than it would put another country in hock. The other day my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that 45 per cent. of the cost of Trident will be spent in America. The figure for the C4 would have been higher than expected, largely due to the cost in exchange rates. However, the Americans are buying much more from us. Between £1 billion and £1·5 billion worth of contracts have been concluded recently by the Americans. The ratio between American and British purchases is much more favourable than it was a few years ago.

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.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has taken to ensure that Her Majesty's Government's policy on nuclear weapons is made clear to the general public.

Defence policy, including the need for nuclear weapons, is set out in the annual statement on the Defence Estimates and in open Government documents such as that recently produced on Trident. A range of fact sheets and pamphlets on deterrence and disarmament subjects is also published by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In addition, the Central Office of Information has recently produced, and is now distributing on request, an audio-visual film called "A Better Road to Peace", setting out the reasons for our policies on deterrence and multilateral disarmament.

Although I welcome the fact that the Ministry is issuing leaflets giving the facts about nuclear deterrence and multilateral disarmament, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that they will include the important moral arguments involved? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the United Kingdom has drastically cut its contribution to the NATO information budget, which will affect the information services on this subject in Britain, and will he do something about it?

The main purpose of those publications is to give the facts about deterrence and multilateral disarmament. That is necessary because of some of the mis-statements of fact that have emanated from the unilateralist organisations. The publications cover the facts and the arguments, including the moral arguments. The NATO information services are a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I shall draw his attention to that point.

Will the Government's propaganda effort include the statement in the Government's White Paper that there is no evidence of any sort to show that the Warsaw Pact has aggressive intentions towards Western Europe? [Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that between NATO and France, the West has 7, 000 nuclear warheads designed for use in Europe, while the Soviet Union has 4, 000?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. He has described the Government's information effort as "propaganda". I do not know how he would describe a document that I have in front of me. It is a full-page advertisement from The Times, which was put out in 1969 by the Labour Government and which supports Britain's acquisition of Polaris.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the fundamental considerations of the Government's policy are precisely the same as those that caused the Labour Government to upgrade our Polaris deterrent by the introduction of Chevaline?

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is curious that when it is in Opposition the Labour Party adopts one attitude towards such matters, and when it is in Government it appears to adopt another.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) inaugurated Chevaline? However, that is just by the way. Is the Minister also aware that the Opposition welcome a public debate on Trident, and that we started that debate and are winning it? Is he aware that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will have to do much better than the fact sheets that the Ministry of Defence has put forward at the Hillhead by-election?

It is accurate to say that when the Labour Party was in power, it endorsed Chevaline.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said "introduced".

I do not think that I used the word "introduced". I said "endorsed". The Labour Party's policy—as expounded by the Leader of the Opposition—is that if a Government led by him were to disarm unilaterally, other countries would follow us. That is a little ironic, since the right hon. Gentleman seems to find it difficult to set an example to his party.

May I correct the hon. Getleman? In the first place, the word used was "introduced", not "endorsed". Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has spoken about unilateral nuclear disarmament, but never about disarmament as such.

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's latter point.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider the implications of the speech made in London on 9 February by the French Minister of Defence, M. Georges Lemoine; and if he will take action in consequence to promote European co-operation in the production of defence equipment, particularly aeronautical equipment.

We have a long and successful record of promoting European co-operation in the production of defence equipment—Jaguar and Tornado are two important examples—and we shall continue to look for new collaborative opportunities. I therefore found M. Lemoine's speech of interest.

Does my hon. Friend accept that his verdict is not the generally accepted verdict, which is that there is scope for much more joint production of European weapons to provide jobs throughout European defence industries? Will my hon. Friend build on the French Government's declared increased readiness to cooperate much more in order to establish more joint production?

I agree that there are opportunities, but there are also difficult political questions that must be resolved. The French Government would accept that they would be among the first to raise those questions if rationalisation were called for.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that defence procurement has nothing to do with the Treaty of Rome, and that our membership of the Common Market has no implications for our defence position?

Yes, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the offer made by French aviation interests to German aviation interests that there should be cooperation on the production of an aeroplane similar to the P110, the need for co-operation by the Ministry of Defence with the Germans, to the detriment of the French, should be a matter of some urgency?

As my hon. Friend knows from our frequent exchanges on the subject, we are in close contact with the German Ministry of Defence, and indeed the French Ministry of Defence, on the matter, and those consultations will continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects that the studies on the next generation of combat aircraft referred to on 1 March, Official Report, column 134, will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

As I said during the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred, our studies are still at an early stage. We shall need to weigh the issues very carefully, and it is too early to predict when this process is likely to be completed.

Are the Government quite satisfied about the quality and the capabilities of the P110, and, if so, does the Under-Secretary of State not believe that it is now time that the Government made a definite decision? Is he further aware that we always wait too long and that our research and development are wasted because of that delay? Will the Government now make up their minds as quickly as possible?

I accept that what the hon. Gentleman said has happened in the past—that successive Governments have tended to delay the implementation of such projects. However, the hon. Gentleman and the House should know that the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Industry must consider at least three major programmes this year—the A320 civil project, the RJ500 engine project and the P110. They must be considered at the same time and they will all cost a great deal of money.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list the steps that have been taken since May 1979 to increase the fighting strength of the Army in Germany.

Since May 1979 major steps taken include full manning, the testing and improvement of reinforcement and mobilisation arrangements, the start of a major reorganisation to improve the operational capability of 1(BR) Corps, and the deployment of a wide range of new equipment, with further re-equipment planned.

Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on what has been achieved in the British Army of the Rhine? I understand that for the first time the reorganisation has emanated from BAOR instead of being enforced on it by London as an economy measure. Will there be adequate stores of spare parts, ammunition and fuel so that training can continue up to the high standard of our Army in Germany?

Yes, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a strange commentary on the proposition put forward by the Defence spokesman for the Labour Party in that when it was in Government, contrary to its suggestion that it would favour a strong, conventional defence, 15 per cent. of the British Army of the Rhine's tanks were in mothballs because it did not provide the resources and manpower for them? Will my hon. Friend accept the warmest congratulations from Conservative Members on the fact that the Government have taken steps to rectify the position?

My hon. Friend scarcely puts a question to me, but he is correct to say that the number of tanks with crews has increased from 469 to 590 since the general election and an extra armoured regiment has been formed. I am grateful to him for his remarks.

When were the plans for those improvements laid, because they were not laid within the time that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) suggested? Does the BAOR have sufficient anti-tank capacity to meet what is coming from the Russians? Can the Minister say whether, because of the reductions in our naval and aircraft cover, we can transfer our reserve forces from the United Kingdom to Germany in sufficient time to meet any threat?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Exercise Crusader demonstrated that our reinforcement capability is as we planned. That exercise was a great success. Our anti-armour capability has been enhanced with the deployment of Milan. Tow is now entering service with improved warheads planned, Challenger is to be introduced and there are programmes of improvement to Chieftain, as well as the issue of the new man portable Law 80 anti-tank weapon. In general, we are doing a good all-round job in anti-armour.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 23 February, Official Report, column 737, whether the United States Government have consulted him about the storage of chemical weapons in the United Kingdom.

There is nothing that I can usefully add to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 23 February. The United States Government have not requested the storage of chemical weapons in the United Kingdom and we are not expecting any such request.

Is the Minister aware that that answer is not acceptable and that many of us believe that the Government are hiding behind the Official Secrets Act on this matter? Will the Government come from behind that cloak of deceit and let Britain know exactly what is goring on with chemical weapons?

The hon. Gentleman persists in his delusion about a cloak of deceit. I repeat that there have been no such requests, nor are we expecting one.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if this country wishes to make, store or deploy chemical weapons, that is a matter for the Government and for the House, possibly, to debate and discuss, but the fact that any other Power might wish to store them here is not of the slightest interest or relevance? Will he confirm that there is a clear qualitative distinction between any facilities and agreements that allow the United States of America to store nuclear weapons in this country and that these could not, under any circumstances, be invoked to cover an equivalent facility for chemical weapons?

I certainly agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. It is the duty of any British Government to be aware of the changing nature of the threat and to be aware of the fact that the Soviet Union has 60, 000 troops specially trained and designated for chemical warfare, with huge quantities of chemical agents that they are deploying forward.

Why does not the Minister assure us that the British Government will not allow the stockpiling of American chemical weapons in Britain? Does he not agree that there has been enough proliferation of nuclear weapons in Europe already, without embarking upon further proliferation of chemical weapons?

I have already answered the question that was originally put to me. In the unlikely event of the right hon. Gentleman being in my place, he would not answer such a hypothetical question.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only is the Soviet Army equipped with chemical weapons, but that they are a front-line capability of the Soviet troops in the Warsaw Pact facing our men in Central Europe?

We know from observations of Soviet exercises that all of their exercises are conducted under nuclear, biological and chemical conditions. We are also aware that chemical weapons have been supplied to satellite countries of the Soviet Union and are used, as has been reported in today's newspapers, in different parts of the world, including Kampuchea.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure the efficiency of maritime air surveillance capability in the South Atlantic.

I am satisfied that our air surveillance capability is commensurate with our defence needs.

In view of the incident on Friday in the Falkland Islands when South Georgia was invaded by Argentinian people, and the possibility of further such incursions, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of keeping HMS "Endurance" on station in the South Atlantic until such time as she can be replaced by a more modern and effective vessel?

I am in some difficulty, because my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be answering a private notice question on the subject in a moment, but I assure my hon. Friend that we take all those matters into account when deciding the disposition of Her Majesty's ships.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the vast sea areas that we are talking about, there is a definite need for land bases for maritime reconnaissance aircraft? Will he say where such bases might be established in time of need, if not in peace time?

The South Atlantic is outside the NATO area. In general terms, we have no need for regular surveillance and we have no intention of establishing it.

As the Falkland Islands would make a good headquarters in a South Atlantic treaty organisation—which is sadly lacking—what are Her Majesty's Government doing to ensure the safety of that base in conformity with the first principle of war?

The security of the Falkland Islands remains a matter of concern to Her Majesty's Government, who maintain a garrison of Royal Marines there, as my hon. Friend knows. That garrison is currently supported by HMS "Endurance" and in future it will be supported by other ships of the Royal Navy.

Is the Minister aware that it is no use referring to a forthcoming statement by a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? The Ministry of Defence decided to abandon the continuation of HMS "Endurance" in those waters. It is the Ministry of Defence that is responsible for maritime defence and for safety and security—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

I do not wish to pre-empt the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. When hon. Members learn more about the nature of the threat, they will realise that that question is not relevant.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his present estimate of the increase in defence expenditure in real terms in 1980–81 compared with 1982–83; and how this compares with the planned increase for 1982–83.

The precise level of real growth achieved will depend on final outturn. On the basis of the forecast of outturn published in Cmnd. 8494 there will be real growth in 1981–82 of about 1·5 per cent. over 1980–81. The cash provision for 1982–83 is in line with the NATO 3 per cent. real growth commitment.

Will the Minister confirm that NATO's 3 per cent. growth figure is not based on any assessment of defence needs, but is simply the percentage that NATO thought it could get away with?

The figure is based on the assessment of NATO that we need to increase our defences in the face of the increasing Armed Forces of the Soviet Union.

Will my hon. Friend say what percentage of the increase will be spent in this country rather than overseas, because I feel that that is a particularly important element of the figures?

With regard to equipment purchases, which I think my hon. Friend may have in mind, we spend over 80 per cent. of our equipment budget in this country.

Is not that estimate a twist? Is not the real increase far greater, because the Minister, instead of taking into consideration the retail price index, as every other Department does, has a special price index for arms, which grow more and more sophisticated and expensive every year? If the Minister had used that other method of estimation, in real terms the increase would have been £6½ billion more than it has been over the last 10 years.

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is true that arms increase rapidly in cost. However, his basic premise is wrong.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of all defence spending is to ensure peace? In view of that, is it not the case that on the one hand the Government have increased our conventional capability and on the other hand they have provided for the most cost-effective way of securing peace through the provision of Trident? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Government are doing enough to counter the immense threat of chemical weapons from the Soviet Union?

We have already had a question about chemical weapons. Our forces are trained in measures to be taken against chemical weapons. With regard to the early part of my hon. Friend's question, it is true that, even after allowing for Trident, under our projections billions of pounds extra will be available because of the 3 per cent. increase in real terms in expenditure on conventional weapons.

To what extent has the Minister taken into account the fact that we allocate over 90 per cent. of our defence expenditure to NATO, unlike every other member of NATO? The result is that, even more than the United States and Germany, we are paymasters of NATO. Accordingly, with every item of defence expenditure that we take into account we should bear in mind that we are the highest spender in NATO.

I am not sure that I follow the exact implications of the right hon. Gentleman's question. Our defence effort is made in concert with our NATO allies. We are observing the objective, which has been set down by agreement in NATO, of a constant annual increase in real terms of 3 per cent.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 March.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall have further meetings later today. This afternoon I shall attend the opening by the Prime Minister of India of an exhibition at the Hayward gallery. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen. Later I shall attend a dinner given by the Indo-British Association.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the Treasury reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on the tax effects of the Budget on the average family? Will she confirm that successive Budgets have resulted in nine out of every 10 families in Britain paying substantially more taxes now than in 1979? Does not that give the lie to every pledge and promise made by the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends at the election? Therefore, should not she understand that not many people believe a single word that she is now saying?

There is a detailed reply giving the precise effects of the combination of national insurance contributions and taxation, bearing in mind that the Government believe in covering the great majority of their expenditure by taxation and national insurance contributions and not, as the last Government did, by a great deal of borrowing, particularly overseas borrowing. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have both towel taxation and lower national insurance contributions—

The right hon. Lady promised that.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have lower taxation and lower national insurance contributions, he should state precisely where he would cut expenditure. In particular, if he wishes to have lower national insurance contributions, he should state where he would cut pensions and other benefits.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the Scottish unemployment figures today, which show a substantial reduction, not only in the unadjusted figures, but in the seasonally adjusted figures? Taken alongside falling inflation, falling interest rates and mortgage rates and growing order books in industry, does not that show that the Government's economic policies for the revival of the Scottish economy are now coming good?

The fall in today's unemployment figures below 3 million was welcome, but on the whole the figures for Scotland were better than those for many of the other regions. That is extremely good news for Scotland. Last week we had an extra order for Scotland—[Interruption.] I notice that Scottish Labour Members of Parliament do not seem to think very much of their constituents obtaining extra orders. We think that that shows that Scottish industry is reviving. John Brown Engineering, Clydebank has a letter of intent for a gas turbine power station, which is worth about £50 million. British industry is competing in overseas markets. Today's news is good news.

I thank the Prime Minister for allowing the Treasury to admit that it has already broken the major promise on which the Conservative Party won the last general election—that of a reduction in taxes.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I point out that this Government have had to repay a large amount of the overseas debt that was left by the Labour Government, under his disgraceful leadership as Chancellor. Secondly, no person has done more for the numbers of police, their pay and morale, than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

I recognise that the right hon. Lady would prefer the news to be good, but she has had to admit that in terms of taxation, law and order and the continuing increase in unemployment, her Administration has broken—[Interruption.]—every promise on which they won the last general election.

I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman's question, but at least my Administration has not got the nation bankrupt, as his did.

Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to reflect upon the request of the Saudi Arabian Oil Minister and others that Britain should raise the price of North Sea oil? Will she reject this request and agree with me that the price of North Sea oil can be determined only by market forces and should not be used as a crutch to support the OPEC cartel?

It is, of course, the British National Oil Corporation that has to determine the price of oil from the North Sea. As my hon. Friend knows, that is determined directly in relation to the market price.

Like gas.

Those are the terms of the Act left to us by the Labour Government. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is too soon to say what the price will be in the coming months. Many countries are using up their oil stocks at the moment, believing that they can replace them at a lower price. The price that we must follow is that which prevails on the world market.

Reverting to the rising crime figures, will the Prime Minister take time to study the speech made in Glasgow, Hillhead by her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), in which he said that if young people are hanging around streets, what can one expect but an increase in crime? Does she agree with him that that is part of the breakdown of society under the stress of unemployment?

I think that it is much too simplistic a reply to say that an increase in crime comes with an increase in unemployment. Certainly there is more crime today, but if the right hon. Gentleman's argument is right the figures would have been at their highest in the 1930s, when the proportion of the unemployed population was much higher than it is now. There has been a considerable increase in crime throughout a period of increasing prosperity, not only in this country but in other countries.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 March.

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

When the euphoria about one month's unemployment figures has died down, perhaps the Prime Minister will bear in mind that today thousands of building workers have been taking part in a march and a lobby on Parliament because 400, 000 construction workers are on the Tory scrapheap—the dole queue. Does she realise that it would not need anybody with a great deal of business acumen to use those construction workers to pile bricks of which there are 500 million in stock—on top of one another to provide homes for the 1·4 million families who need a home and for the 2 million houses that badly need renovating? If the Prime Minister does not have the ability or the will to carry that programme through, why does she not make way for an Administration that will rebuild Britain out of the slump?

It is certainly true that we could spend a good deal more on capital account if we spent a good deal less on current. However, local authorities have spent right up to and over their current allocations and have underspent their capital allocations. Nevertheless, it will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced both a construction package and particularly a package to help labour-intensive construction, through special help for house improvement grants, particularly those that are notified this year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that criticisms from the Opposition Front Bench come ill from those Members—including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who is unfortunately not in his place—who have reportedly advised civil disobedience? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn such speeches?

Those who advise civil disobedience cannot believe in parliamentary democracy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 March.

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

Now that there are 4 million on supplementary benefit, does the Prime Minister agree that the original concept of the scheme has changed from being a safety net for the few to being a poverty cage for the many? Is this an accurate reflection of the Government's philosophy, or is it an acknowledgement of their failure?

The number of people on supplementary benefit has never been the few the right hon. Gentleman claims. They have always been considerable, both in the number of claimants and claimants' dependants. I should not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's assessment that the number of claimants is near to 4 million. They were already 3 million in 1977.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £10, 000 compensation awarded to the four Walsall dinner ladies would not have been possible but for the passage of the Employment Act 1980? Is it not unjust that the ratepayers of Walsall should be called upon to pay this amount, considering that the Labour council of Walsall was said by the tribunal to have had no intention whatsoever of reinstating the ladies? Is it not true that the Labour candidate at Glasgow, Hillhead voted in favour of the Labour Government's legislation strengthening the closed shop?

I confirm that the Walsall dinner ladies would not have received any compensation but for the passage of the Employment Act 1980. The Labour Government left legislation providing that people could be sacked from their jobs because they refused to join a closed shop, and left without compensation. It is certainly true that Mr. Roy Jenkins was a member of that Government and, I believe, voted for the passage of the Act that left such people with no compensation. I share my hon. Friend's view. I think it wrong that the ratepayers should have to pay this compensation. It would be for the ratepayers to consult the district auditor to àscertain whether there were any other methods of meeting the compensation.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is widely reported in the Scottish press today that one of the items that she was discussing with her ministerial colleagues this morning was a possible new power agreement to allow the Invergordon aluminium smelter to re-open? Was that matter discussed? If it was, will the right hon. Lady make a statement on the future prospects for the aluminium smelter?

Discussions on the Invergordon aluminium smelter are continuing.