asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons are currently employed in the sales section of his Department.

At the end of September 1982 the strength of the defence sales organisation was 352 civilian and serving officers.

As imports of manufactured goods to Britain now exceed exports, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be more sensible to redeploy those people in the organisation to the promotion of our civil exports instead of promoting the ugly and squalid sale of weapons of death?

One of the many lessons of the Falklands conflict is the vital importance of having a strong defence industrial base—one that is able to respond quickly to the demands of the Armed Forces. The activities of that organisation assist in that process.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in the organisation have been working extremely hard to encourage sales of Tornado to as many countries as wish to buy it—Greece, for example? Can he give any background to how that proposed sale is going?

The proposed sale of Tornado to Greece is being pursued actively by the manufacturers of the aeroplane, Panavia, which is a consortium from Germany, Italy and Britain, and there has recently been a highly successful demonstration of the aircraft's capability to the Hellenic air force.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the lessons of the Falklands war is that we must be careful to whom we sell arms? Will he cancel the foolish proposal to hawk arms on a ship around the Gulf—an area of great potential conflict—next year? The proposal can do neither that area nor the peace of the world any good.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman in one respect—we must be extremely careful about whom we sell arms to. We have always done so, as have Labour Governments, who sold far more to some South American countries than we have. I do not agree with the second part of of the hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his review of the combat performance of the equipment and weapons of the United Kingdom Armed Forces during the Falkland Islands campaign.

I intend that the White Paper on the lessons of the Falklands campaign, which I have already told the House I am producing and which will include the operational, logistic and equipment lessons, will be published before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he cannot publish too soon the details of the alterations to defence policy that are obviously necessary in the light of the Falklands campaign? Is he also aware of the grave anxiety of Conservative supporters throughout the country at the frequent reports in The Daily Telegraph of grave dissatisfaction amongst extremely senior naval officers?

If my hon. Friend believes what he reads in The Daily Telegraph, and that story, he will believe anything. It is normal for journalists to check on some of the facts that they report, but apparently that practice spoils these stories. The White Paper is not intended to be a fundamental defence policy White Paper. It is about the lessons of the conflict, especially logistics, operation and equipment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the combat effectiveness of two vital systems would have been crucially enhanced if his Department had not dithered over the lightweight version of Sea Wolf and cancelled the Sea improvement programme for the type 42s?

The forward programme includes improvements to Sea Dart. The lightweight Sea Wolf is also in the programme.

What about then—before the Falklands conflict?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are spending far more on defence equipment than did the Labour Government. We must decide our priorities within the available resources, which are increasing, because of Government's policy, by 3 per cent. in real terms each year.

Is it not the case that the Rapier system performed extremely well during the Falklands campaign? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that our allies in NATO are fully apprised of the effectiveness of the equipment that was used?

Yes. The Rapier system performed exceptionally well. We are providing to all our allies, both to those, like the Americans, who are using Rapier, and to our other allies who are interested in the project, all the lessons that we have learnt about the equipment, which was an outstanding success.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be presenting the White Paper himself? Does he intend that there should be a debate before Christmas in which he will take part, or will that duty be left to his successor?

Unless the Prime Minister has a reshuffle before Christmas—I do not control that—I shall be presenting the White Paper. I hope that we can produce it in adequate time for the House to absorb it before hon. Members go away for the Christmas Recess. Whether there is a debate will be decided between the usual channels. Obviously, having published the White Paper, I should welcome a debate. Whether time can be found is a matter for discussion between the usual channels.

This is a serious question. It would be curious if the White Paper issued by the right hon. Gentleman, who has announced that he intends to leave, for reasons that we understand, were to be debated by someone following him.

It is for that reason that I should welcome the opportunity of a debate on the White Paper, but the timing of it does not lie wholly in my hands.

Is the House to infer from my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) that there is no truth in the stories that have been appearing regularly in The Daily Telegraph?

I am afraid that I do not know to which stories my hon. Friend is referring.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet determined the future use of the land now occupied by HMS "Fisgard", Torpoint; and if he will make a statement.

As has been announced, HMS "Fisgard" is due to close in December 1983. Provided that there is no other Ministry of Defence requirement for the land and buildings there, the property will be passed to the Property Services Agency for disposal in the usual way.

Will my hon. Friend state whether there is any prospect of the Royal Marines or some other Service unit occupying this valuable and extensive site? If not, can he give the House the assurance that he will instruct the PSA to get on as quickly as possible with the sale of the site for some other positive use?

As the search has not been completed, I cannot say whether there will be any other Service use. If there is not, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. I can also inform him that the Royal Marines will not be going there.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the first cruise missiles are due to be deployed in the United Kingdom.

In the absence of concrete results in the arms reduction negotiations in Geneva on intermediate nuclear forces, cruise missiles are due to be deployed in the United Kingdom by December 1983.

As the United States, on many occasions, particularly recently, has made it clear that it is prepared to put United States interests before those of Britain where it suits it, how on earth can the deployment of American owned and controlled cruise missiles in this country be justified? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the majority of people in Britain today reject this proposal?

The hon. Gentleman appears to misunderstand the reasoning behind the proposed installation of cruise and Pershing II missiles in Europe. That action is due to be taken, in the absence of an arms reduction agreement, at the request of the European countries. It is intended to demonstrate to the Soviet Union and to Western Europe that the United States is fully committed to the defence of Western Europe.

Has the Minister noted statements by United States officials that development problems affecting cruise and Pershing II missiles are no worse than those affecting any new weapon system? Does he find that choice of words comforting? Is he convinced that the cruise will be ready on time?

According to the information that I have, I expect the cruise to be ready for deployment by the end of next year. The tests being conducted on the Tomahawk cruise missile, which is the relevant one, show a success rate of over 80 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most people hope that the sooner these weapons are deployed in the United Kingdom the better, especially in view of the threat from the growing number of Soviet SS20 missiles? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to counter the dangerous and misleading opposition to the stationing of these weapons here?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the urgency of this problem. When NATO first proposed in 1979 the installation of cruise and Pershing missiles, and simultaneous negotiations with the Soviet Union to make that deployment unnecessary if agreement could be reached, the number of SS20s in the Soviet Union was just over 100. The figure is now 324. I believe, therefore, that the imbalance that existed in 1979 has worsened. We shall try to reach a disarmament agreement, but in the absence of such an agreement we must press on with our plans.

Is the Minister aware that the brave women of the Greenham Common peace campaign are representative of the views of millions of women in this country? Has he recognised that the harsh decision of the authorities to imprison them will increase rather than decrease the determination of women and men throughout Britain who are determined to oppose this dangerous escalation of the nuclear arms race?

It is clear to me that the vast majority of people in this country believe in nuclear deterrence combined with a policy of multilateral negotiations for arms reduction. The case of the women at the so-called peace camp at Greenham Common is not a matter for me.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that cruise missiles are defensive or retaliatory, and that they are in no way offensive or first-strike weapons.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They travel at about the same speed as a British Airways jet. They would take three hours to reach Moscow.

Is the Minister aware that the original decision to deploy cruise missiles, far from bringing America and Western Europe closer together, has created confusion and dissension, especially by raising the spectre of limited nuclear war in Europe? Why do not the Government cancel the project, which is a major and dangerous step on the ladder of nuclear escalation?

If there is confusion, it has been caused largely by some of the unilateralist organisations which have been spreading false information. I have previously told the House that one CND leaflet contained five gross errors of fact, three of which are conceded either by Monsignor Bruce Kent or by Lord Jenkins of Putney, a former hon. Member of this House. A limited nuclear war is not an objective of Western policy. The introduction of cruise missiles is intended to demonstrate that the United States is bound into the defence of Western Europe.

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the whole object of a cruise missile is to fight a nuclear war on the Continent of Europe? Why is that not a limited nuclear war?

The right hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement concerning Argentine weapons and equipment discarded in the Falkland Islands; and if any uses can be found for such material within the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom.

We are continuing to examine and, where appropriate, recover to the United Kingdom, Argentine military equipment left on the Falkland Islands. The majority of items being retained are for operational use by our own forces or for technical evaluation.

I am grateful for that reply. To what extent does my hon. Friend think the Territorial or reserve forces can use some of the equipment that has been left behind, thereby enabling them to have more ammunition than would otherwise be available? To what extent are the weapons or equipment being returned to this country for evaluation likely to be used by our forces?

We are evaluating all these factors. If the Territorial Army has requirements that can be filled by this equipment, it may well be issued with such equipment. I am afraid that I cannot quantify the matter, as research is proceeding at the present time.

As Conservative Members, and in particular the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), continually stress, erroneously, that our enormous defence expenditure creates jobs, is it not rather illogical of the hon. Member to suggest that we should revert to using secondhand military equipment?

In the interests of the taxpayer, my Department will always use that which is available to it. In this case all the equipment is in excellent order and will be of use to our forces.

Were any Exocet missiles containing British components supplied to Argentina during the Falklands campaign? Did any of the Exocet missiles that were used during this campaign contain any British components? If so, what were those components?

That is a long way from the original question, The facts about the Exocet missiles are well known.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for the regular publication of data on the accuracy of public weather forecasts and state the latest data on their accuracy which are available.

No, the accuracy of public weather forecasts, which has been maintained at 86 per cent. nationally since my hon. Friend asked a similar question in July 1981, is very high, and any significant trend needs to be judged over a period of years.

While I do not doubt my hon. Friend, I find his reply extremely surprising, and my surprise is widely shared. Will my hon. Friend explain, chapter and verse and more lucidly, about the weather forecast accuracy of 86 per cent., and say what it is based on? Can weather forecasters be a little more accurate in the presentation of their information, as their forecasts are supposed to be accurate?

One of my predecessors wrote to my hon. Friend as long ago as 1977 explaining the procedures for evaluating weather forecasts. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that you would not allow me to do so in detail, but I am satisfied that as much care is given to this as is possible within the resources available.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the closure of Royal naval dockyard facilities at Chatham and Portsmouth is now expected to occur; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence during the defence debate on 1 July.

Given that the White Paper on the lessons of the Falklands war has been promised us before Christmas, would it not make sense to delay making any further progress on the closures of these two dockyards until we have had a chance to debate the lessons of the war? This is particularly so as one outcome of such a debate might be that we would wish to put more resources into submarines, which would make the facilities at Chatham even more valuable.

We have already said that there will he no further redundancy announcements in Portsmouth before the beginning of next year, and some redundancy notices that had been declared have been withdrawn. With regret we have to repeat the decision, already announced, that Chatham will close as planned.

When did the first SSN submarine go to Devonport for refit and refuelling, what was the target date when it was to come out, what is the position with regard to that submarine now, and when is it now expected to come out?

The first submarine was "Swiftsure". It is now expected to come out in March next year. It has been delayed. The principal delay was at the beginning of the process when work was not started on the submarine for 15 months because of an industrial dispute. Since then there has been another industrial dispute, which affected all the dockyards last year, as my hon. Friend will know.

Is not one of the lessons that can be drawn by the House in advance of the White Paper—and one that is corroborated by many people who took part in the Falklands war—that had the rundowns and closures in Chatham, Portsmouth and Gibraltar proceeded a little earlier there would not have been the slightest possibility of our being able to send a fleet to the Falklands?

That is untrue. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are expanding Devonport and Rosyth. We still have to take a decision about the exact size at Portsmouth, and in addition there are the commercial yards.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that if he is quite determined on his policy on Chatham there will be sufficient opportunities for there to be a transition from military to civil use, so that the professional and technical skills that are so famous in Chatham will not be dissipated, and the work force can move over to civilian work with an easy transition?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the skills available at Chatham. Some of the personnel from Chatham have already moved to Devonport and others will move in future. As my hon. Friend will know, North-West Kent has been declared an enterprise zone, and Chatham is one of the only three places in the country that benefit from the enterprise allowance scheme. I hope that these measures will help.

How can my hon. Friend tell the House that the Government have already come to a decision before the White Paper has been published? Does he realise that many Conservative Members share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs)?

We shall be taking a decision about the level of manning at Portsmouth in the light of the White Paper, and that allows us a certain amount of flexibility. With regard to the broad picture, we have said that we propose to continue with the strategy set out in last year's White Paper, but within that strategy we shall be prepared to draw lessons from the experience of the Falklands. On that basis, it is clear that we have to say, with great regret, that Chatham will not be necessary for our purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any significant changes will be made in the design and the materials used in the construction of warships as a result of experience in the South Atlantic.

Analysis of the experience gained during the Falklands campaign is not yet wholly complete, but we are considering some detailed changes in warship design.

Will changes be made in the use of materials in warships now under construction or planned? In particular, is the Minister aware that naval design seems to have ignored aspects of technology that have long been obvious in other sectors of metal use? For example, in the technology of deep mining, the disadvantages of aluminium have long been seen. May we have an assurance that the experience in other sectors of technology will be urgently applied to naval construction?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that all these factors are being taken into account.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is already apparent that the problem of fire in warships in the South Atlantic is not just a question of the aluminium superstructure but the flammable material inside the warship? Will future warships be rather more spartan and less comfortable internally, and are these factors being taken into account in the design and specification of ships already under construction?

I assure my hon. Friend that these are precisely the factors that we are examining.

Will the Minister confirm that the ships sunk off the Falklands are now war graves? Is he aware that some of the next-of-kin will find it difficult to believe that diving is being carried out on those ships when they were led to believe that that would not be possible, which was the reason for not bringing the bodies home?

The right hon. Gentleman has been written to in detail on the matter. Perhaps he will await the arrival of that letter.

Is not one of the lessons that of the inadequacy of our ships' surface-to-airdefences, and are plans being made to fit lightweight Sea Wolf to all our warships to combat missiles?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, these questions arising from the Falkland conflict will be addressed in the forthcoming White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the Gurkha pension of £5·88p a month was first paid; and what it should be now to offset the effects of inflation.

The pension in question was payable with effect from 1 September 1980. It has already been raised in line with movements in the consumer price index for Nepal to £8·94p with effect from 1 April 1981 and to £10.00p with effect from 1 April 1982.

Knowing of my hon. Friend's great admiration of the Gurkhas, and as they did so much to assist us in the South Atlantic, standing shoulder to shoulder with our own Service men, does he agree that it would be wrong now to shelter behind the agreements made 30 years ago with the Indian Government to maintain the pensions in line with those of the Indian Army? Is it not now time thoroughly to review the position with a view to updating the amounts paid to a much more sensible and realistic figure?

As my hon. Friend knows, a substantial change was made in 1981 to inflation proof this pension in terms of the economy into which these people retire. While I completely share his compliments on their performance—indeed, everyone has known of that performance for many years—the fact remains that they are not complaining about the new arrangements, which they welcomed at the time.

Is it not a disgrace that former soldiers from both world wars, not just Gurkhas, should have to depend on handouts from the Earl Haig fund? Will the Minister do something about it?

I am not aware of any difficulties for Gurkha soldiers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as the Gurkhas are performing identical duties to our own indiginous troops, in all fairness they ought to be moved more closely to our own scales?

This question relates to terms of engagement. When the Gurkha soldier signs on, he is well aware of what his pension is likely to be, and, after all, we have made a substantial improvement on the previous payment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the circumstances in which the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Fort Austin" sailed for the South Atlantic in March.

RFA "Fort Austin" sailed from Gibraltar on 29 March to replenish HMS "Endurance".

Is the right hon. Gentleman confirming that the "Fort Austin" sailed before the Prime Minister said on 31 March that she was aware of the possibility of an Argentine invasion? Does it not stretch credulity too far to imagine that a ship of that size was meant to provision HMS "Endurance"? Will the right hon. Gentleman make a clean breast of this issue and say whether the vessel was sent to retrieve and collect the nuclear weapons that were contained on the ships of the task force?

RFA "Fort Austin" sailed to replenish HMS "Endurance". She sailed on 29 March. Those are the facts.

Did Ministers give the order for her to sail?

Of course. Who else?

Is the Secretary of State aware that the merchant seamen now on board this vessel in the Falkland Islands are in industrial dispute because the Department refuses to pay them the danger and hardship allowance paid to other merchant seamen sailing on civilian vessels? In the interests of justice, will he intervene, correct the injustices and return the ship to full operation?

I shall look into the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. However, in general the performance of our merchant seamen in the Falklands conflict was absolutely outstanding. The negotiations that we undertook at the outset of that conflict provided a substantial and well-deserved augmentation to the Merchant Navy's pay and allowances. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else can say that they were not extremely well paid for doing a marvellous job.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the sending of the "Fort Austin" had nothing whatever to do with the invasion of the Falklands by Argentina? Is he saying that the Ministry of Defence knew nothing whatever of the invasion before the Prime Minister heard of it two or three days later? Will he also confirm that the sole purpose of the visit of "Fort Austin" was to provision HMS "Endurance"?

I do not want to spoil the Opposition's excitement about this matter, but RFA "Fort Austin" sailed to replenish HMS "Endurance". That is why she was sent, that was the purpose of sending her, and much as I am sorry to disappoint the Opposition, that is the truth.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply involving a lie—[Interruption.]

Order. Did the hon. Gentleman say that it was a lie? If so, he knows that he must withdraw the remark.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One does not send a 16,500-tonne—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a parliamentarian and knows that he cannot accuse anyone of telling a lie. The sooner he withdraws that remark, the sooner we can return to questions.

I do withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his visit to the Falkland Islands.

I visited the Falkland Islands from 22 to 25 October. The major achievement of our forces since the ending of hostilities has been the construction at Stanley of a runway capable of operating air defence aircraft. The top priority now is to provide adequate accommodation for all military personnel prior to the next Falklands winter.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and agree wholeheartedly with his last remarks. In view of the recent reports that Argentina has been trying to purchase Exocets and other formidable military equipment, can he assure the House that our own forces are in a satisfactorily strong position to defend the islands against any future attack or invasion?

Yes.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the construction of the runway at Port Stanley by the Armed Forces is a remarkable achievement by any standards? Is he satisfied that the situation at that airfield is sufficient to carry out the military purposes of the task force? Has he any other place in mind for a second airfield?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the achievement of the Royal Engineers in constructing the longer airstrip at Stanley is remarkable, and the speed with which they did it was amazing. We are looking at a more substantial airfield for the future. No decisions have been taken. A team has studied another site, but, as the hon. Gentleman may know, we have now asked the team to have another look at the present airfield site with a view to strengthening and lengthening it.

Will the Secretary of State confirm the recurrent annual cost of maintaining the garrison on the Falkland Islands? Will he also confirm that as public expenditure as a whole is not to rise, and as defence expenditure will, the cost of maintaining the garrison on the Falkland Islands will result in substantial cuts in other expenditure? Is it right, for example, that old-age pensioners should be asked to pay for this through the clawback in the pensions increase that the Government are proposing?

The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no clawback. The provision being made next year for the capital and revenue costs of the garrison is £424 million. That provision will be published in the public expenditure White Paper. That money will be used for the augmentation of our general defence capability and any increases in our forces to meet the garrison needs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful for the fact that he saw us immediately on his arrival from the Falklands, before some of us embarked for the Falklands? Will he confirm that the morale of our forces on the Falkland Islands is at its highest and that they will all be in fixed roof accomodation before the onset of the next South Atlantic winter?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for leading a group of Members from both sides of the House to the Falkland Islands, and for what he has advised me on his return. The morale of our Service men was extremely high. They are still living under difficult conditions, and we have to get them into better accommodation before the next Falklands winter. They are doing a splendid job and morale is excellent.

All those Opposition Members who went agree with the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the conduct and morale of our troops, who are working under appalling conditions. We are anxious that there should be no doubt about their being in proper accommodation when the next Falklands winter comes. Secondly, there seems to be a grave lack of airborne early warning systems in the area. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it seems to be a waste of ships to have them still out on picket duty?

On the latter point, we have good radar coverage of the islands. Until we update and modernise the radar systems, it is useful to use ships as radar pickets, to augment the existing system. The air defence of Port Stanley and the islands is now satisfactory. We have Phantom aircraft, augmented by Harriers. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must have proper accommodation by next winter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal Air Force squadrons flying the air bridge, the tanker crews and the fighter squadrons being refuelled on the way to the Falklands are showing exceptional airmanship? Will he give the Royal Air Force the congratulations of the House on that achievement?

I shall certainly pass on those remarks. The quality of the work and the spirit in which our forces are tackling the problem are remarkable. If it is representative of young people generally today, the country has a great future.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received any representations from Scotland in support of Government policy to locate the Trident nuclear missile base in Scotland.

Our records do not distinguish between correspondence according to the residence of the author.

Does the Tory Government not realise that if they persist in trying to foist Trident on to the people of Scotland they may come up against direct action even more widespread than the recent events at Greenham Common? In view of the threat to peace that nuclear weapons pose, should it not be the Prime Minister who is gaoled for breach of the peace instead of the 16 courageous women who are the victims of a grave miscarriage of justice?

I am confident that when the people of Scotland fully understand the merits of Trident and the fact that it is the most efficient successor to Polaris at the most reasonable cost, they will support it. I am encouraged in my assessment of the views of the people of Scotland by a recent opinion poll, published in the Glasgow Herald on 18 October, which showed that a clear majority of Scottish people thought that Great Britain should retain nuclear weapons. In no category of age, sex or class was there a majority opposed.

Will there not be greater public reluctance about the siting of cruise than the siting of Trident as the British Government, in which the nation has a deeply enduring trust, have physical control over Trident, whereas the American Government have physical control over cruise?

My hon. Friend knows the arrangements for cruise. They will be the same as those that have applied to American nuclear forces in this country for many years under successive Governments—the bases cannot be used without the consent of both Governments.

Since more than half the expenditure and most of the maintenance and servicing on Trident will be done in the United States, and since no one in his right senses believes that Great Britain will be engaged in a nuclear exchange with Soviet Russia against the will of the United States, why do the Government not cancel this ridiculous project, which distorts our defence strategy and places an intolerable burden on public expenditure?

There is no doubt that Trident in British hands will be an independent strategic nuclear deterrent, as is Polaris at present. It is still our assessment that 55 per cent. of the work on Trident will come to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of deployment of medium-range nuclear weapons by the Warsaw Pact.

The Soviet Union has now deployed a total of 324 modern SS20 missiles, each with three warheads. Approximately two-thirds of those weapons face Western Europe. In addition, there are still up to 275 SS4s or SS5s deployed in the Western Soviet Union, and approximately 500 aircraft.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the threat posed by those weapons will be resisted by appropriate deterrents and that there will be a determined effort by the Government to see the number of such weapons reduced?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As I explained earlier, we put forward proposals for disarmament negotiations in 1979. The Russians were slow to take up that offer. I am glad to say that they are now negotiating with the United States, but meanwhile we have to continue with our preparations for the deployment of those missiles. I believe that any other course would be fatal to any prospect of success in those negotiations.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 November.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also met the chairman of the Indian Advisory Committee of the Festival of India to mark the end of the very successful festival. Early this afternoon I was present when Her Majesty the Queen welcomed Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands on her arrival in London. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I will be attending a State banquet in honour of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands at Buckingham Palace.

What encouragement does the Prime Minister draw from the latest findings of the Central Statistical Office showing industrial production in September as flat, and with no improvement in the third quarter over the second, thus confirming the recent bleak forecasts of the CBI? Does the Prime Minister deny that the PSBR could now provide for some pump-priming, or has she abandoned unemployed people to the electoral needs of a give-away Budget?

The hon. Gentleman is right, production is flat. But he will have noticed that the retail trade is buoyant and he will have drawn the conclusion that people are buying more goods. The demand is there, but it is not being met by production from our factories. That stresses the need once again to be competitive both in price and design. As regards the PSBR, as one of the world troubles in the coming financial year will be the accumulated deficits of debtor countries, it is far better that we do not join those countries, but keep our finances on a sound basis.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to study recent developments in the London borough of Lambeth, where, due to the defection of a Social Democrat councillor, the Marxist-led Labour Party is now in control? Does she not think that that is bad news for the ratepayers of Lambeth? Does that not prove, as regards the Social Democrats, that once a Socialist always a Socialist?

I agree wholly with my hon. Friend. What has happened in Lambeth shows that the Social Democrats prefer to keep their Socialist allegiance when there is a choice. I agree also that it is bad news for the Lambeth ratepayers. Under the Conservative-controlled Lambeth council the rates were reduced by a further 10p this year.

Turning to a more serious subject than the SDP, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she will be good enough to clear up the confusion that she left last week about the proposed pension clawback? There is a serious discrepancy among Ministers about the amount involved: the right hon. Lady says about £375 million and the Chancellor about £180 million. May not the Chancellor be correct, as the sum is only for part of a year? Will the right hon. Lady tell us that she will not proceed with the miserable measure to take back money which pensioners would otherwise have had under the law of the land?

The right hon. Gentleman has confused two figures. The £375 million is the extra amount paid in advance, by virtue of the 11 per cent. payment being over and above the amount that would have been required for inflation. That is the extra amount paid out in advance this year. It is a payment in advance. The £180 million next year is an amount which is in the public expenditure plans and which has not yet been allocated.

Will the right hon. Lady take the opportunity to state that she will not go ahead with the legislation? In the five years of the Labour Government the value of the pension was increased by over 20 per cent.—[Interruption.]—The real value was increased by over 20 per cent. Seeing that the pensioners might conceivably get a 2 per cent. increase, the right hon. Lady proposes to claw back part of it. Will she promise—we give her the chance—not to introduce legislation on the subject?

No. What we also have to consider is—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Answer"] I answered directly. I said "No". If only hon. Members would listen instead of shouting. I also have to consider—[Interruption.] If hon. Members do not wish to listen, I shall not reply.

rose—

rose—

Order. It is inevitable that if people are not allowed to speak, both sides of the House will get agitated. I remind the House once more that everyone is entitled to a reasonable hearing.

It is right that the right hon. Lady should be heard. Everyone in the House and the country should hear her answer. The pensioners especially want to hear it.

That includes the right hon. Gentleman.

I believe that the pensioners would be the first to understand the burden on the working population. On a pay-as-you-go scheme, every penny paid out this year must be paid in this year, and it is paid in by the working population, who will already be paying a 9 per cent. national insurance contribution on their wages, with the employer paying 10·45 per cent. What they are paying is not sufficient to meet the fund's outgoings this year, which is being borne from the reserves. We cannot go on that way. When we come to consider the amount for the pension next year, which will be decided in the Budget, we must take account of the pensioner and the working population, The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the phraseology that I use is similar to that used during the time of the last Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the recent 2 per cent. cut in mortgage interest, rates have come down by 5 per cent this year? Does she agree that in many cases it is cheaper for a council tenant to buy rather than to rent, which should be an added incentive for people to buy council houses?

Yes. In many cases the discount permitted to council tenants and the tax relief on mortgage payments will mean that the net mortgage repayment is less than the rent that would otherwise have been paid. I hope that that fact will lead many council tenants to take the opportunity to purchase their houses under the right-to-buy legislation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 16 November.

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

In view of the Government's gross interference in the price mechanism for gas and electricity, will the Prime Minister, who clearly acknowledges that there is merit in intervention, abandon other of her cherished principles and throw out the monetarist concept in order to get the country working again?

The hon. Gentleman must be referring to a levy on gas. There is petroleum revenue tax on gas from some fields but not on gas from others. The recent decision was made wholly by the Gas Council, and the decision was made possible as it had kept within its external financing limit. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the decision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour-controlled council in Crawley has put up signs costing £900 stating that Crawley is a nuclear-free zone? Does she agree that neither Mr. Andropov nor the ratepayers of Crawley are likely to be impressed by the declaration and that it is a total waste of money?

I entirely agree. The sign has no legal significance and serves no purpose. Unfortunately, it puts an extra burden on the ratepayers and shows once again that Labour has no consideration for them.

Will the Prime Minister recall the words that she intoned in Downing Street after the last election to the effect that she would seek to give hope where there was despair? Is she aware that in my constituency 125 people are now unemployed for each vacancy on the job register? Against that background, why does she refuse to meet a deputation from the Manchester city council and the North-West Industrial Development Association to discuss the industrial wasteland developing in the area?

Had the Government not tackled the fundamental problems which the previous Government thrust aside, such as overmanning and keeping old industries going with money that should have been directed to new industries, because they were too difficult, there would be precious little hope for industry's future. We now have to make industry still more competitive and we have a long way to go to make up for the lost years. The deputation from Manchester city council should be seen by the Department of the Environment.

In view of the new Soviet leadership, will my right hon. Friend agree to support the Swedish Government in any new representations that they may make about the fate of Raoul Wallenberg, especially as his plight symbolises the fate of countless other political prisoners?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have considered the matter before. It is extremely serious. Raoul Wallenberg disappeared a long time ago, having helped many people to escape from a dangerous situation, in which their lives may have been lost. We shall certainly join in any representations.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 November.

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

Following the Prime Minister's statement last night that pensioners should not be reduced to penury, will she confirm that had the £10 Christmas bonus kept pace with inflation it should now be about £30? Does she agree with what a Liverpool pensioner said to me recently, that if she does not increase this pitiful sum it could reasonably be said that Scrooge is alive and well and living in Downing Street?

My comments last night referred to the savings of non-index-linked pensioners having been reduced by a policy of inflation over the years. I said that those days were over; the pensioners were abused disgracefully by a policy of inflation over a decade.

As my right hon. Friend has expressly not taken time for the purpose today or yesterday, does she believe that it was wise of President Reagan to sign the book of condolence in Washington for President Brezhnev?

It is for President Reagan to make his own decisions. I sent a message of condolence direct to the Soviet Union, the Minister of State signed the book of condolence and the Foreign Secretary went to the funeral in Moscow.

Did the Secretary of State for Defence tell the Prime Minister on 29 March that Ministers had ordered the Fleet Auxiliary vessel "Fort Austin" to the South Atlantic?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that HMS "Endurance" had to be replenished. The Fleet Auxiliary vessel was sent to do that. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that "Endurance" was to be replenished.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that at the forthcoming GATT conference the Government will uphold the principles of genuine free trading, bearing in mind the activities of countries, such as Spain with cars and Korea with ships, which do not follow the British example?

It is our purpose, and it is in our interests, to uphold the principles of free trade. However, we are in difficulty when other countries do not uphold the same principles. We must make it clear to them that if free trade is to continue, as we wish, they must bring down their barriers or they will be in danger of retaliation from Britain.