asked the Secretary of State for Defence how it is intended to ensure the military security of the Falkland Islands in the long-term.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on operations in the Falkland Islands area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding his military measures against Argentina; and if he will ensure that priority is given to safeguarding the lives of the Falkland Islanders and the British residents in Argentina in any policy he contemplates.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many letters he has received, at the latest available date, criticising Her Majesty's Government's military dispositions in the Falkland Islands area before 1 April.

I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Members to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, informing the House of the operation undertaken on 25 April to repossess the British dependency of South Georgia and of the continuing diplomatic efforts to reach a negotiated solution to the crisis provoked by Argentine aggression.

rose—

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only certain way to ensure the future security of the Falkland Islands is for the Argentine to understand beyond any shadow of doubt that it cannot gain its wishes by an act of aggression and that a lasting settlement can be reached only when it has withdrawn its forces?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That principle applies to many countries and islands throughout the world.

I appreciate that the military operations take place against a background of ceaseless diplomatic activity to find a peaceful solution, but does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if it should be necessary to take additional action, which might include the neutralisation of hostile air forces, there would be widespread support, particularly if the objective were the limiting of casualties, as has been so brilliantly displayed up to now?

I share my hon. Friend's desire that we should do everything possible to find a peaceful solution to this dispute. However, if force becomes necessary, I agree that we should use the minimum amount to achieve our objective.

Do the islanders want the attack that was clearly implied by the Prime Minister yesterday, with all the blood and tears that that would entail for their families and for British Service men and their wives, children and parents? No one has asked the islanders what they want. As the Argentine Government have agreed today to allow a Red Cross team to go to the islands, should not the United Nations be authorised to send a team to ascertain the Falkland Islanders' views?

The Falkland Islanders cannot be consulted about such matters at the moment, because they are the victims of an act of aggression. Nobody would be happier than I if we could contact the Falkland Islanders to ascertain their wishes. That is our principal purpose.

Has the Secretary of State made, or does he intend to make, any arrangements to use an air base in Chile in the event of a military engagement with the Argentine over the Falkland Islands?

I cannot comment on that. We have had widespread support from countries all round the world, but I cannot comment on such matters.

After all that has happened, does the right hon. Gentleman now realise that visible, flexible naval power is a more important independent deterrent for Britain—and one that Britain may even be obliged to use on its own—than a nuclear deterrent?

I am certainly in favour of visible naval power. The conventional Navy receives about £½ billion more in real terms per year than when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for such matters. Among the lessons that we have learnt from this incident is that, in the last resort, Great Britain must be responsible for its own defence. There is no way in which this country can ultimately be protected without a nuclear as well as a conventional deterrent.

Given that South Thule is in the general Falkland Islands area, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many Argentines are illegally present on the island, and will he keep the matter under close review?

I am very conscious of the position there. I do not know the exact number involved, but it is between 40 and 70. The number varies as the winter approaches.

How can the security of the Falkland Islands—or, indeed, of the British Isles—be preserved on the basis of the last defence White Paper? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government intend to provide a strong and proper conventional maritime defence and to scrap Trident?

The principal threat to Britain comes from the Soviet Union and its allies, not from Argentina. As a member of NATO, we maintain a range of forces, both conventional and nuclear, to deter that threat. I repeat that the amount that we are now spending on the conventional naval programme—I emphasise "conventional naval programme"—is £½ billion more than what was spent on it when the Labour Party was in office.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman yet understood that one-third of the task force will be scrapped two years from now under the defence White Paper scheme?

Again, that is an inaccurate remark. Of the destroyers and frigates now in the task force, not one is on the sales list and not one was on the sales list before the incident began. The figure of 17 vessels is a figment of the right hon. Gentleman's imagination.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal Navy's ability to put together in four days a task force of sufficient size to go to the South Atlantic is a tribute to the Royal Navy's present capability? Is it not nonsense for the Opposition to suggest that the Royal Navy has suffered from cuts in the defence budget when the task force proves what can and will continue to be done?

As I said in our debate recently, nothing in our plans for the future will prevent a naval task force of the type now at sea from being sent on a similar task in 1985 or 1990. However, any such task force in 1985 or 1990 will have been further modernised and will have more up-to-date weapons. In a few year's time the task force will be even more powerful than it is today.

Now that the Secretary of State and his colleagues have found out that they are dealing with a Fascist junta in the Argentine, will they give a categoric assurance, so that similar mistakes are not made in future, not to sell any more arms to Fascist regimes?

I cannot give any assurances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—about the possible actions of Fascist juntas. However, the vast majority of the modern weapons possessed by the Argentines were sold to them during the time of the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is intended to reinforce the garrison in Hong Kong.

No, Sir. However, the new agreement with the Hong Kong Government on defence costs, which came into effect on 1 April 1981, provided for the permanent garrison to be increased by one infantry battalion and supporting elements. This new battalion became operational last month.

Does not the fiasco of the loss of the Falkland Islands clearly demonstrate that it is futile and absurd to give military guarantees to nineteenth century colonies that are scattered round the globe? Is it not dishonourable and unjust to those concerned, and should we not abandon that policy?

I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would not regard the situation in Hong Kong as identical with or similar to the situation in the Falkland Islands. I should not have thought it excessive for there to be five infantry battalions in a territory with a population of 5 million people.

Will my hon. Friend put the matter in straightforward perspective? Is not any suggestion of any similarity in the relationship between the Government of the People's Republic of China and this Government over Hong Kong and that facing Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands utterly ridiculous? Will my hon. Friend confirm that we enjoy an excellent relationship with the People's Republic of China—[Interruption.]—and that the perceived military threat both to China and to Hong Kong comes only from the Soviet Union? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that we are in touch with the People's Republic of China to ensure that we act jointly, if necessary, against that threat?

I agree that we have very close relations with the People's Republic of China.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that wherever necessary the Armed Forces are able to communicate world-wide without unreasonable delay.

Yes, Sir.

Given the importance of long-haul communications—whether by satellite or high frequency systems—to any country with world-wide responsibilities, will my hon. Friend ensure that, in considering whether we need to continue to rely on American satellites, proper credit is given to the enormous potential of both the British Marconi and Plessey communications systems?

My hon. Friend's views have been noted. Wisely, he has been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. We shall bear that point in mind.

When does the Minister expect the British defence satellite to come into operation?

It is not customary to give details of such operational matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage and absolute increase in the defence budget over the years 1980–81 and 1981–82 due to (a) inflation and (b) increase in real expenditure.

It is too early to say yet what the final outturn on the defence budget for 1981–82 will be, but it is expected that spending will be very close to the cash provision published in Cmnd. 8494. On that basis, the total cash increase over the years 1980–81 and 1981–82 will be some £3,400 million. Of this, some £2,870 million is currently estimated to be due to inflation of 18 per cent. and 11½ per cent. respectively, and some £530 million provides for a real increase of about 4½ per cent. The 1982–83 cash provision provides for real growth of some 11 per cent. over 1978–79.

On the assumption that we manage to evict the Argentines from the Falkland Islands, how much additional expenditure will be necessary in this year and succeeding years to maintain in that area a permanent naval presence of sufficient strength to deter any future aggression by the Argentines?

Clearly a large amount of money will be needed to maintain a substantial naval presence in the South Atlantic. We are seeking a negotiated settlement for the future security of the Falkland Islands without the necessity for a naval presence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in defence spending, particularly the increase in the proportion of spending that has been devoted to the Royal Navy, has enabled us to equip the task force with missiles and torpedoes and thereby make it more formidable than would have been possible three years ago?

My hon. Friend is right. The need is constantly to update and provide better weapons systems for the Royal Navy. My hon. Friend probably realises that we are devoting a slightly higher percentage of the total defence budget to the conventional naval programme than did the Labour Government. We have not transferred expenditure from the Navy to other areas.

As the Secretary of State does not appear to have learnt anything over the past few months and still believes that he has a good defence strategy, will he explain why his defence White Paper has been postponed and is being rewritten?

I thought there was a general wish, shared by both sides of the House, that we should not publish the defence White Paper until the crisis was over. I responded to that feeling by postponing publication of the White Paper. However, the White Paper is substantially complete. As soon as the House feels that it is appropriate, I will publish it.

Is the Secretary of State saying that the White Paper has merely been postponed? We were told earlier that there was an addendum or an erratum to it. If there is an addendum, what is it about?

I can explain that very simply. The defence White Paper is already substantially complete. It can be published at any time. There is nothing in it that in any way contradicts or embarrasses the Government vis-a-vis the Falklands crisis. I felt that it was more appropriate to hold back publication of the White Paper for a few weeks during the crisis.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us agree that there is nothing outlandish in being ready to learn from events?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, we will look at the current situation to see whether there are any necessary and desirable adjustments to be made to the general strategy that we have already outlined. That is nothing to be ashamed about.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any proposals to merge the Service guard dog training units; and if he will make a statement.

We are considering changes in our arrangements for training guard dogs and their handlers. Concentration of the work into one unit is one of several possibilities.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the primary use of an active Royal Air Force airfield is for flying? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] It is important that I do read.

Order. Public confession of reading at Question Time is always a mistake. If the hon. Gentleman looked up more often it would help.

I know the question so well that I do not need to read it.

I am aware of the conflict of interests at Syerston. However, the Ministry of Defence must use its available assets to the best advantage. I do not think that this particular difficulty can be resolved.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the RAVC headquarters in Melton Mowbray, where much vital dog training takes place, has extremely strong links with the town? Is he further aware that it has great support from local people and that, if he is looking for expansion, they would be happy to accommodate him?

I do not wish to disappoint my hon. Friend, but the future of the Army's dog training facilities will be included in my inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the involvement of British forces personnel in peace-keeping operations in the Middle East.

Thirty-seven British Service officers and men are currently deployed to the Sinai. Their main task is to act as the headquarters company of the multinational force and observers, which was set up to help maintain peace in the area following the Israeli withdrawal. We also provide some logistic support for the United Nations interim force in Lebanon from our bases in Cyprus.

Will the Minister confirm that there have been hundreds of violations of the ceasefire on the border between Lebanon and Israel? If Britain has a contingent in the multinational force, will it not be possible for the Government to report direct to the House of Commons on the number and nature of any future violations?

We do not have a contingent in the force in the Lebanon. We supply some logistic support for that contingent from our bases in Cyprus.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people feel that a more robust attitude should be taken by the United Nations forces in South Lebanon towards the enclave run by Major Haddad, which is causing embarrassment to everyone in the Lebanon.

I take note of that point, but it is for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what economies, or increases in real expenditure, have been made in the sovereign base areas in Cyprus in each of the last 10 years; and what savings or additional costs have resulted in cash terms and at constant prices.

I regret that the information sought by the hon. Member is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate effort. However, I am arranging for details of the estimated budgetary cost of the British Forces in the sovereign base areas and associated sites since 1974–75 to be published in the Official Report at both current and constant prices.

As we are able to maintain such substantial forces in those permanent bases, what do the Government intend to do about a far more serious invasion than that of the Falkland Islands? The invasion to which I refer involved a great loss of life and serious injury in an area for which Britain had statutory responsibilities. Will the Government use these forces to put right the problems arising from that invasion, especially as the Government of Turkey are now proposing to put in gaol the democratically elected Prime Minister of the country, Mr. Bulent Ecevit, for up to five years?

As I recall, when the invasion to which the hon. Gentleman referred took place, the Labour Party was in power. Therefore, the question of military action does not now arise. This is a problem for diplomatic action, and it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and others.

Has not the maintenance of the sovereign bases in Cyprus over the years contributed to the stability of the area and helped our allies and friends of peace in that part of the world?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the sovereign base areas are extremely valuable. They are situated at strategic points on the world atlas.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future organisation and ownership of the Royal ordnance factories.

I hope to be able to make a statement in the near future.

Is the Minister aware that he and his colleagues have been saying that since December 1980 when we first debated the future of the Royal ordnance factories? The Prime Minister has said that the prospects for privatisation of the ROFs in the near future are not good. Will the Minister now make it clear that the Government will abandon all ideas of privatising the ordnance factories and allow the employees to get on with the excellent job that they are doing?

This is a complex issue. We have been right to take our time before reaching a decision. We do not want to delay that decision much longer. Immediate privatisation is not in prospect, but we believe that changes should be made to the constitution of the Royal ordnance factories to allow them to operate more competitively than hitherto in commercial life.

Does my hon. Friend agree that putting the Royal ordnance factories in the position of Companies Act companies and giving them a separate sales team, as the ROFs believe is necessary, would go a long way to increase their already great effectiveness both in this country and abroad?

I agree with much that my hon. Friend has said. I know that he will await the announcement with interest.

Does the Minister agree that the present crisis shows the importance of keeping the Royal ordnance factories under Government control and ownership? Is he aware that it is important to my constituents who work at Radway Green that an announcement is made as quickly as possible in order to dispel the uncertainty with which they have lived for too long?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that an announcement will not be unreasonably delayed. I take this opportunity to congratulate the ordnance factories on the contribution that they have made and are making.

Will the Minister assure the House that in any changes that the Government envisage, this now extremely profitable enterprise, with an expected profit of £30 million this year, will not go to benefit the Government's friends?

The hon. Lady should wait for the announcement, which will not be unduly delayed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now retain HMS "Hermes" in service till the end of the decade.

As we explained in Cmnd. 8288, our general strategy involves keeping two carriers in service throughout the 1980s and beyond. We therefore plan to phase out HMS "Hermes" once HMS "Ark Royal" joins the Fleet.

The departure of HMS "Invincible" and HMS "Hermes" for the South Atlantic at 72 hours' notice was a great achievement for both the Navy and the dockyards, but does my hon. Friend agree that we were fortunate that one of those carriers was not in for a refit at the time? Does he further agree that it is not merely desirable, but essential, that there should be three major ships if two are to be available for service at any time, as is clearly necessary?

My hon. Friend will take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that the strategy set out in Cmnd. 8288 was designed with the point in mind that the main threat comes from the Soviet Union. I remind my hon. Friend that by 1985 we shall have in service two aircraft carriers that will be a good deal more powerful than the two that we have now.

In view of the great success of the task force, will the Government cancel the sale of HMS "Invincible" to Australia?

No, we cannot cancel the sale of HMS "Invincible" to Australia, as it has already been agreed. I repeat my right hon. Friend's point that when the Falkland Islands crisis is over we shall consider whether any adjustments are needed within the general strategy, but the general strategy set out in Cmnd. 8288 remains valid.

Is it not clear that in the years ahead the Royal Navy will need to have two carriers ready for sea at any moment? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is impossible with a two-carrier fleet? Will the Government therefore consider the fact that, in terms of cost-effectiveness, increasing the fleet to three carriers will double the number of carriers that can be put to sea? Should not that be the purpose of an addendum to the defence White Paper?

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that such an increase will double the number of carriers that can be put to sea. If we have two, two will be available for two-thirds of the time. I cannot add to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

Is it true that HMS "Hermes" uses the same type of fuel as HMS "Britannia"?

Yes, that is true, but if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that as a reason for sending HMS "Britannia" on the task force he is on unsound ground, as it would have required an extra Royal Fleet Auxiliary to be sent especially for HMS "Britannia", which would have been extremely uneconomic.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed with our right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that lessons might be learnt and that there is nothing to be ashamed of in that, is not the retention of HMS "Hermes" and HMS "Invincible" a lesson that we might consider learning?

I have already replied to a question about HMS "Invincible". I cannot add to what I said in response to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North.

Is the Minister aware that if General Galtieri had waited a few months we should not have had a task force to send to the South Atlantic, because HMS "Hermes" would have been in the knacker's yard and HMS "Invincible" would have been on the way to Australia? Why do the Government not admit that their defence strategy, especially their naval strategy, is in ruins and that the Secretary of State's tenure at the Ministry of Defence has been disastrous?

Once again the right hon. Gentleman is extremely badly briefed. I do not know how he can be ignorant of the fact that HMS "Hermes" will remain in service until 1985.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes any changes to the defence plans announced in his White Paper.

The adjustments to our force structure announced in Cmnd. 8288 are designed to produce a balanced range of capabilities to counter the prime threat to the United Kingdom posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies, but versatile enough to respond wherever our interests are threatened. When the Falkland Islands crisis is over we shall naturally consider whether any adjustments are needed within the general strategy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I regard that as a very sensible answer and that I shall therefore not ask for any more details at this time?

Will the Secretary of State reconsider the actions that have been taken and those that are in train in relation to the dockyards, in view of their excellent performance during the Falkland Islands crisis?

In view of the present emergency I have said that no further redundancy notices should be issued in the immediate future, but our general strategy for the future of the dockyards must remain unchanged.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible to postpone closure of the Gibraltar dockyard, a subject which we were not able to probe on an earlier question? Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety on both sides of the House about the proposed closure?

I realise that there is anxiety about this matter. We are giving every possible assistance to finding some future for the Gibraltar dockyard, other than its existing defence function. It is a very unhappy event to close any extablishment, but unless we tailor the future support of the Royal Navy to the size of our front-line forces we shall not be able to afford to go on putting more resources into modern weapons systems, new platforms, combat stocks and other requirements. We cannot have an overlarge support structure that we do not require.

Will the Secretary of State clarify the position about redundancies at Chatham dockyard? Last week there was a report from the Ministry of Defence that the redundancies would be postponed, but there is now some confusion over whether that is so. Will the Secretary of State confirm, or otherwise, that all the redundancies in the pipeline for Chatham have at least been postponed?

As I have just said, no further redundancy notices will be issued in the immediate future. I believe that further redundancies at Chatham were to be declared on 7 May. Those will not now be declared. No further redundancies will be declared in the immediate future, but our general plan for the future of the dockyards remains unchanged.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the vessels engaged in the Falkland Islands task force are due to be sold or scrapped.

With the exception of HMS "Endurance", whose long-term future we shall be considering, one warship and three Royal Fleet Auxiliaries are due to be disposed of by the end of next year.

Do Ministers now recognise that the decision to scrap HMS "Endurance" was taken by the Argentine as a signal that Britain would not be ready to defend the Falkland Islands? Is he aware that the British public were genuinely horrified to learn that the Government regarded as unnecessary the vessels and dockyards that were so effectively pressed into service? Does he appreciate that that calls into question not only the policy but the continued position of the Ministers responsible?

I think that the Government have conceded that the planned withdrawal of HMS "Endurance" may have been taken by the Argentines as some kind of signal, but HMS "Endurance" cannot have been taken by them as a deterrent, because the invasion occurred when it was still on station. With regard to the launching of the task force, as my right hon. Friend has said, we could repeat such an effort in the future after our plans have been put into effect.

In view of the substantial reduction in the equipment and the morale of the Armed Forces during the period of the Lib-Lab pact and the intense opposition of the Labour and Liberal parties to the Government's proposals to increase spending on defence, does it not surprise my hon. Friend that we should now be hearing cries for further defence expenditure from right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was not aware that any of the Opposition parties was planning to spend more on defence than the Government are. I repeat a point that has already been made, that under our present plans we shall have more major ships in operation in 1985 than we have now.

Is the hon. Gentleman not deluding himself and the House when he imagines that by closing down the Gibraltar, Chatham and, virtually, the Portsmouth dockyards we will in future be able to have a task force that is capable of being anything like the present task force?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not yet fully seized the importance of the fact that we are to do away with the major mid-life modernisations that we have previously undertaken. The consequence is that in 1985 we shall have more major ships operational than we have at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reconsider the priorities in naval spending in view of the developments in the Falkland Islands.

As I have already said, the main threat to the United Kingdom is posed by the Soviet Union and her allies, and the response to this threat remains our overriding priority. We therefore plan to proceed within the general framework outlined last year, which includes maintaining a capability to deploy as necessary outside the formal boundaries of the Alliance.

How on earth does the right hon. Gentleman expect to inspire any confidence in the future defence policy of the country when he is refusing, at this stage, to admit, even in the light of the Falkland Islands crisis, that he got any of his priorities wrong, when the whole country realises that we would not be in the present mess if he had got them right? Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the vast expenditure on nuclear weapons is completely unjustified and that, in the light of the equivocation of the United States, vast numbers of people in this country now regard it as utterly wrong to rely on cruise missiles, under American control, based in Britain?

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that no other nation in the world—and in that I include the two super powers—could have put to sea a task force of this size in three days. There is nothing in our plans that would prevent such a force, with two carriers and an equal number of more modern frigates and more modern weapons, from putting to sea in 1985 and 1990.

Has this crisis not demonstrated above all the extent to which our naval strength depends upon our fleet of nuclear hunter-killer submarines? As that fleet, which is to be enlarged, depends essentially upon adequate refit and refuelling facilities, will my right hon. Friend confirm at least that he is looking again at all the arguments that were deployed so strongly in favour of keeping our existing refit facilities?

I agree that the necessity for a surface fleet is absolutely clear. I also agree that our fleet of SSNs has been a key factor in this crisis. Our fleet of SSNs will grow from 12 to 17 during this decade. My hon. Friend is right. As I have often said to him, we will have sufficient refit capacity at Rosyth and Devonport to handle our fleet of SSNs.

If the right hon. Gentleman's record is so impeccable, why did he offer to resign?

I should be the last to claim that my record is impeccable, so I am sure that hon. Members will cheer at that. Of course my record is not impeccable. I have lessons to learn from this incident, just as anyone else has. I have learnt three lessons: first, that the readiness of combat stocks and spares is crucial; secondly, that the readiness of sufficient fuel is crucial; and, thirdly, that the ability to use civilian assets taken up by the Department of Trade in an emergency of this kind is crucial. Those are some of the lessons that we have learnt, and of course there will be others.

asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the present position in the Falkland Islands.

Following my statement yesterday, I must emphasise again today that, while the Government remain determined to do everything possible to achieve a negotiated settlement, time is fast running out. I know that Mr. Haig understands this and that he has been in touch with the Argentine Government today.

What did the Prime Minister say to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' earnest request not to escalate the problem?

I am very well aware of the Secretary-General's request and that the Security Council's resolution must be complied with. It is Argentina that has flagrantly failed to comply, and it is because of that failure that we must now be free to exercise our right to self-defence under article 51.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at a time when the House is rightly proud of the British forces in South Georgia and united in their support, it also firmly supports her efforts to achieve a diplomatic settlement of this dispute? Will she, even at this eleventh hour, consider a new step, namely, utilising the mediation services of the Holy See, which has unrivalled experience in such matters, particularly in Latin America?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he knows, His Holiness is already mediating in a dispute between Argentina and Chile. His Holiness sent a telegram yesterday to Her Majesty the Queen urging the Government to make every effort to find a peaceful solution on the basis of justice and international law, and he hopes and wishes to believe that such a peaceful solution is still possible.

The right hon. Lady's reply on the subject of the appeal from the Secretary-General of the United Nations was insufficient and unsatisfactory. Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that this is a new element in the situation? Is it not extraordinary that she did not include any comment on it in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)?

We have an excellent ambassadorial representative at the United Nations, and he was there to receive this statement. In the second paragraph of that statement the Secretary-General said:

"In this critical situation, the Secretary-General therefore appeals to both parties to comply immediately with the provisions of Security Council resolution 502".

Read on.

I am perfectly prepared to read both the first paragraph and the next.

I put it to the right hon. Lady again that her reply is entirely unsatisfactory and does not come anywhere near measuring up to the scale of events. Will she now tell us the answer that was given by our ambassador to the Secretary-General on this matter? Will she respond to my suggestion that the Foreign Secretary, who went to Washington to discuss these matters with Secretary Haig, should go to New York to discuss these matters with the Secretary-General, too, before any further escalation of violence occurs?

I think that our ambassador's reply is likely to have been—[Interruption.]—of the nature that the best way to comply is for the United Nations to bring pressure to bear on the Argentine to withdraw her forces. If she withdrew them there would be no problem whatsoever.

It seems from the right hon. Lady's reply that she does not even know what our ambassador said and was making the answer up as she went along. I say to the right hon. Lady, as straight as I can, that if she does not make a proper response to this appeal from the Secretary-General of the United Nations—who is entitled to make such an appeal under the constitution of the United Nations—along the lines that I have suggested, with either the Foreign Secretary or somebody else going to New York to discuss the matter—and I put it in a hypothetical manner—she will inflict a grievous blow to our country's cause. I hope that she will consider the matter properly.

I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. If we were to refuse to take any further military action during this negotiation he would put many of our soldiers and sailors in jeopardy.

Resign.

The responsibility in this matter rests with the right hon. Lady and with all hon. Members of the House of Commons. I ask the right hon. Lady not to take any further steps in the escalation of military matters and to give the House of Commons the chance of deciding what should be the proper response to the appeal of the Secretary-General. I ask her not to take any military action, but to take this diplomatic action after consulting the House of Commons.

I stand by the terms of the United Nations resolution and of the United Nations charter. Until the terms of that resolution are complied with and the Argentine forces withdraw we shall continue to exercise our rights under article 51. My reply to the Secretary-General is to urge him, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, to address his remarks to the junta in the Argentine.

Resign.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House welcomes the emphasis that she continues to give to working to find a peaceful solution to the crisis? In view of Secretary of State Haig's declaration that the United States will do all that it can to resolve the differences between ourselves and Argentina without further conflict, can my right hon. Friend say what differences stand in the way of a peaceful and honourable settlement?

As I said in reply to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), Mr. Haig has been in touch with the Argentine Government today. We hope that that will be fruitful. The main stumbling block is that the Argentines have not withdrawn their forces, but have steadily reinforced their garrison. Throughout the whole of the period since the passage of the United Nations resolution they have continued to reinforce their forces on the Falkland Island with both men and materials.

asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 27 April.

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.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the belligerence that she has shown in the past two days misjudges not only the critical situation in the Falkland Islands but the mood of the British people? I do not in any way underrate the many difficulties and problems involved, but does the right hon. Lady agree that at this stage what is required above all else is a rapid intensification and widening of economic sanctions, particularly through the agencies of the United Nations? At the same time, will she make it clear to President Reagan, in straight talking, that his neutralism will not be forgotten in this country?

I do not believe that we have misjudged the views of our citizens over the Falkland Islands. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember, too, that there are many British citizens living under occupation on the Falkland Islands. He will be as anxious as I am to see that they are not under that occupation for a moment longer than is necessary. The easiest way to achieve that is for the Argentines to withdraw their forces. They broke the peace first.

Reference has been made to the attitude of the British people. They are resolutely behind my right hon. Friend. My question refers to the attitude of the Argentines. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the full resources of our propaganda machine are being mobilised so that the Argentines are aware of the real truth of the situation and are not being force-fed lies by their military dictators?

We are doing as much as we possibly can, especially through the BBC external services, to put out the facts of the situation. I cannot say how often they are heard in the Argentine.

Is it not clear from the Prime Minister's statements yesterday and today, and from the "Panorama" interview last night, that the Government never had the slightest intention of using the United Nations for the purpose of negotiation, or of negotiating directly under resolution 502, and that it was always the Prime Minister's intention that there should be only a military expedition? Is it not clear, to that extent, that she has hitherto grossly misled the House and the country?

The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I suspect that he knows it. The Government went immediately, the day after the invasion, to the Security Council, gained the support of many other nations and secured the passage of that resolution. It is over three weeks since that resolution was passed. It has not been complied with. On the other hand, Argentina has continued to make the situation worse. We want a peaceful settlement. The easiest way to achieve that is for the Argentines to withdraw their troops.

As the rights and wrongs of the dispute have already been established by international law and supported by the Security Council, is not three weeks about as long a period of intense negotiation as can be justified if both parties are negotiating in good faith?

My hon. Friend is right. Not only have three weeks passed, but during that time the Argentines have put more and more reinforcements on the islands, which shows that they do not intend to comply with the resolution. As we have been saying recently, and as Mr. Haig has been saying, time is running out, because the military options in that part of the world must have regard to the weather and climatic conditions. We still require a peaceful settlement, and we can get one if the Argentines are willing to have it.

Mr. David Steel.

rose—

May I ask the Prime Minister these further questions? Will she publish as speedily as possible the timing and exact wording of the reply given by our ambassador to the Secretary-General's statement, so that we can all see what was said on behalf of our country? Will she reconsider what I have said about the Foreign Secretary going to New York? If the case is as good as she says, why should not our Foreign Secretary go to New York and state it there? That is what I ask for. If the right hon. Lady does not respond to my request she will do great injury to our country in the eyes of the whole world. As we act in this matter only under the United Nations charter, I urge the right hon. Lady to accept that the advice that I am giving her is in the best interests of the country as a whole.

I do not think that there is a formal reply to such a message. Various views are expressed informally, but it is not a formal reply. Formal reports are given by our ambassador to the United Nations, as they must be, about article 51 and the precise action that we have taken. We have full details of that. I stress to the right hon. Gentleman that resolution 502 is mandatory. Unfortunately, the United Nations does not enforce it and has no means of enforcing it. Therefore, we can only bring the best possible pressure to bear on the Argentine to enforce it.

Does the right hon. Lady's reply to me mean—I can construe it only in this way—that there is to be no official reply on behalf of her Majesty's Government to the appeal from the Secretary-General?

I can make an official reply if the right hon. Gentleman wishes. It will not be any different from what I have said, because the governing factor in United Nations law—I use the word "law"—and in international law is the resolution of the Security Council. The only possible thing that one can call upon the Secretary-General to do is to implement it. The only thing that I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to do is to use all his powers and influence with the Argentine Government to implement it.

rose—

Order. In view of the time, most exceptionally I intend to call the Leader of the Liberal Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall tell the House why. It is because I believe in fair play.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The record will show that you called me before the time ran out. I gave way to the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Prime Minister clarify two matters? Were the proposals that the Foreign Secretary brought back from Washington commended to the Government by Mr. Haig? Have the Government made a detailed response to those proposals?

The proposals do not yet have the status of formal proposals. They are still discussions. We have let Secretary Haig know our views, but my right lion. Friend did that while he was still in Washington.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the news blackout on the Falkland Islands situation, which might mean that our troops have landed there, should not the Prime Minister make a statement on the matter?

Order. It is unfair for someone who is trying to make a political point to raise it on a point of order.