asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now answer parliamentary questions on the number of nuclear warheads possessed by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the numbers of Russian nuclear missile warheads targeted on western Europe.

It has not been the practice of the United Kingdom, United States or Soviet Governments to reveal the numbers of nuclear warheads in their stockpiles. Comparisons of the numbers of nuclear delivery systems deployed by NATO and the Soviet Union are set out in figure 7 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1982". We estimate, however, that in the intermediate range alone the Soviet Union possesses 351 SS20 missiles with 1,053 warheads, and that approximately two thirds of these face western Europe, together with about 250 warheads on the older SS4 and SS5 missiles.

Is it not one of the Secretary of State's basic functions to hide the truth from the people? Given the answer that he has just provided, is it not true that he has neglected the fact that there is already massive overkill among the nuclear super powers and that, taking all warheads together—strategic, theatre and tactical—the West has the majority of warheads? If those facts were known, would not more people join the CND than ever before?

It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman believes that we live in a society that tries to hide the facts from the people. He must be fully aware that only three and a half years ago his party was in full possession of all the information that is available to me and believed categorically then that it was necessary to have nuclear weapons and to modernise them.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during the past five years the number of Russian nuclear warheads targeted on western Europe has increased by 400 and that during a similar period there has been a reduction on our side of no fewer than 1,000? Is not cruise a replacement for more obsolete weapon systems as well as a response to the deployed SS20s?

I confirm that the Americans have withdrawn 1,000 nuclear warheads from Europe during the period to which my hon. Friend referred. Without matching the figure of 400 that he mentioned, I can tell him that since March 1982, 54 SS20s have become operational at six completed bases. The cruise missile system is to be deployed in western Europe in response to the large number of SS20 missiles that have been deployed and face this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman stop dodging the question? If one takes strategic and theatre nuclear weapons together, in terms of targeted warheads has not the West more than the Soviet Union? Will he answer that question? Will he deny those facts if they are not true?

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that all these matters are the subject of discussion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—at the disarmament talks which are proceeding and which we support strongly. If the Soviet Union is genuinely interested in reducing the numbers of those warheads, it is the Western powers' priority to achieve that aim.

Is it not contemptible and immoral for the Labour party to say, as it does in "Labour's Plan", that it is not opposed to the existing Alliance, but wishes to abandon nuclear defence? Is it not utterly contemptible that it is prepared to accept the protection of the American deterrent, but is opposed to the British deterrent?

My hon. Friend has raised a critical issue, about which we have far greater information today with the publication of the latest defence statement of the Labour party. Broadly, it says that it wishes to undermine the basic defence policy that has guaranteed the peace of western Europe for the past 37 years. It wishes to see the end of the NATO Alliance. It wishes to remove Polaris—

No.

Yes. The words for which I search say that the Labour party wishes to see—[Interruption.] I have not found the words, but they are in the document that has been handed to me. The Labour party wishes to see the end of the NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact Alliance. I have now found the words. It says:

"The ultimate objective of a satisfactory relationship in Europe is the mutual and concurrent phasing out of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact."

Order. That is too long an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I must tell the House that if there are to be long supplementary questions I shall call only one hon. Member and move on, because long questions are not fair to others whose names are on the Order Paper.

Instead of indulging in his normal politics of gimmickry, the Secretary of State should brief himself properly before he comes to the House. He will know, or his civil servants will tell him, that the last Labour party conference voted overwhelmingly, by more than a two thirds majority, to stay in NATO. Is not the important fact that the Soviet Union and the Western Alliance could destroy each other 50 times over with the warheads that they now possess and that the real priority—I am sorry that the Secretary of State is so insensitive to this—is to freeze nuclear weapons and reduce them so that the world can become safer and saner?

If the real priority is to reduce nuclear weapons, why did the Labour Government, four or five days before polling day, say that it was essential to maintain nuclear deterrence and to modernise the weapons systems we had?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the deployment by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons in central Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons deployed on each side in Europe.

NATO maintains a range of nuclear forces geared to the Alliance's strategy of flexible response. At present the Warsaw Pact has approximately 650 short-range nuclear missiles and about 300 nuclear-capable artillery tubes deployed in Europe. NATO has 100 comparable missiles and about 1,000 nuclear-capable artillery tubes. The Alliance is currently examining the size of its nuclear stockpile in Europe with a view to ensuring that the size of the stockpile is set at the minimum level consistent with effective deterrence.

Is the Minister aware that a NATO commander recently said that those battlefield weapons were obsolete, dangerous and unusable? Therefore, would it not be sensible to remove them as a step towards attaining a nuclear-free Europe?

I do not know to which NATO commander the hon. Gentleman is referring. I do not know of any authoritative statement to that effect. However, it is true that the Alliance is examining its stockpile of battlefield nuclear weapons to see whether they are all necessary.

Is it not the case that those large numbers of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons deployed throughout central Europe could be used outside direct political control in the event of a breakthrough by Warsaw Pact conventional forces? Does not that pose by far the greatest threat of an outbreak of an uncontrolled nuclear escalation in Europe? What steps is the Minister taking, together with the Foreign Office, to bring about negotiations on the withdrawal of short-range battlefield nuclear weapons to complement the START and INF talks that are taking place in Geneva?

The hon. Gentleman's first premise is wrong. Those weapons could not be used without political control. With regard to a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 1 March about the consideration that we are giving to that proposal and the disadvantages that we see in it.

If the West has withdrawn 1,000 missiles, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said, how many have the Russians withdrawn?

As far as I know, none, Sir.

Is not the real problem that the NATO strategy of first use of nuclear weapons, which is what it is, is totally unrealistic? Should not the Government, instead of engaging in attacks on people who are campaigning for peace, campaign within NATO to eliminate the battlefield nuclear weapons and move away from the policy of first strike to a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons?

I shall amend the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir N. Marten) and add that the Soviet Union has withdrawn some of its more obsolete weapons, but has replaced them with more modern ones. With regard to no first use of nuclear weapons, we have a much better policy, which is no first use of any weapon, nuclear or conventional. We shall never use any weapon unless we are attacked. We are a defensive Alliance and threaten nobody. The Soviet Union's declaration about no first use of nuclear weapons in part reflects the Soviet Union's confidence in its superiority in conventional weapons, and, what is more, it is unverifiable.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the reason why NATO deployed tactical nuclear weapons in western Europe was that the Soviet Union had a predominance of 3:1 in armour, a massive number of artillery weapons, and had organised its defence industry on a war footing? If the Soviet Union wishes to see a better understanding between East and West, perhaps it could scale down the size of its conventional forces deployed in Europe.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures have frequently been quoted in the House. The Soviets have, in addition, overwhelming superiority in intermediate range nuclear forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report the progress of the design for the type 23 frigate.

I have nothing to add to the reply that my predecessor gave to my hon. Friend on 16 November 1982.

Will my hon. Friend at least assure the House that those vessels will be armed with both surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles as well as the helicopter and towed arrays? Are the lightweight Sea Dart and the lightweight Sea Wolf being considered for those vessels?

In the debate in December last year my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Sir J. Nott) gave a list of the weapons systems which the ship would carry. I have nothing to add to the information that he gave at that time.

Is it true, as is rumoured, that the prototype type 23 sank?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to.

Would it not be more sensible to use our money to re-equip our Navy properly than to lend our money to the Argentines to re-equip theirs?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House last week to hear the effective answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when that point was raised. The very stringent conditions that are attached to international loans will make it more difficult, not easier, for the Argentines to spend money on offensive weapons. With regard to the equipment of the Royal Navy, I am glad to say that the type 23 and other ships that we now have in design and on order w ill improve our capability.

Can my hon. Friend bring us up to date on the trials of the broader shorter hull, as opposed Ito the narrower longer hull, particularly in view of the interest that has been expressed in the concept of the broader shorter hull in the United States?

I have, indeed, learnt of the new design that is under consideration for the United States Navy. With regard to alternatives for the type 23, the opportunity has been given to Thornycroft Giles and Associates to validate some proposals for a new design along those lines, but work is still in progress and no submission has yet been made to the Ministry of Defence about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings have taken place between officials from his Department and officials representing the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe to discuss British military assistance to that country since April 1980; and if he will make a statement.

We have been providing military assistance to Zimbabwe for the past three years in support of efforts to secure a peaceful and stable future for that country. This has involved frequent contacts with members and representatives of the Zimbabwe Government.

In the light of the attacks in Zimbabwe on the free press, the moves by Mr. Mugabe towards a one party state, and the murderous attempts on Zimbabweans, black and white, in Matabeleland, will my right hon. Friend reconsider giving further British military aid to that country?

I must say to my hon. Friend that the points that he raises are not for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. With regard to British military aid, the troops that we have been training have not been involved in any of these disgraceful episodes.

Does the Minister agree that as long as there is a serious military threat to Zimbabwe from South Africa it is reasonable that we should give military assistance to that country?

The object of providing military assistance to Zimbabwe is well known to the hon. Gentleman and has very little to do with his question.

What serious evidence can my hon. Friend offer the House to show that the provision of either military or economic aid to Zimbabwe is likely to mitigate, or has mitigated in any serious way, the consequences of the rapid retreat from the Lancaster House agreement? If it has not mitigated those consequences, in what way is the continued provision of either military or economic assistance said to be in the interests of the United Kingdom?

I dealt with that in my former answer. The questions that my hon. Friend raises are not for me. The British advisors have competently and capably trained a part of the Zimbabwean army to lead to an orderly future for that country. The problems being encountered are, unfortunately, due to those parts of the army that were trained by the North Koreans.

Is the Minister aware that those of us who have been fortunate enough to see and meet members of the British military mission in Zimbabwe have been impressed by their work and by the obvious support that they have received from the Zimbabwean Government? Is he further aware that anything that can be done to maintain stability in central Africa and provide a buffer against aggression from South Africa, and with which this country can be associated, is to be welcomed?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. Of course, we do these jobs extremely well, as the world knows. The hon. Gentleman's congratulations to our forces are well deserved and I shall see that they are drawn to their attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to place any orders for hovercraft in their minehunting capacity as recently demonstrated to the Royal Navy.

We have no present plans to do so, but we are considering running on the BH7 hovercraft for further trials.

Does the Minister agree that mine detection and mine hunting and destroying are important matters, for which the Government need to step up our protection? Is he aware that for about 12 years we have been conducting trials with the BH7, which is a project of great importance to the economy of my constituency? Is it not about time that we placed some firm orders?

I recognise the importance of taking counter measures against mines, particularly since I served in minesweepers for a considerable period. I am awaiting an evaluation of the performance of the hovercraft in the trials that have recently taken place, and we will be considering our proposals at that stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any further plans to purchase Nimrod aircraft.

There are no plans to place orders for further Nimrods at present.

The Royal Air Force will be 65 years old this weekend. What better way of honouring that anniversary than for my hon. Friend to make a commitment to the cost of starting up the production line for Nimrods, which would help not only the RAF but potential export customers?

As my hon. Friend knows, the reopening of the production line for Nimrod is primarily a matter for British Aerospace. We are awaiting proposals from British Aerospace and I hope that they will be forthcoming quite soon.

With their twin Marconi AD 470 high frequency transceivers, could not Ascension based Nimrods pick up the coded messages between the Argentine mainland and the Belgrano and her escorts? With their encryption facilities, could they not send coded in-flight messages to the British Prime Minister, and was it not partly through Nimrod that the Prime Minister knew perfectly well what the orders were from the mainland to the Belgrano before she gave the orders to HMS Conqueror to torpedo her?

No.

It is a lie.

Does my hon. Friend agreeߞ

That is a lie.

—that the Nimrod is now an outstanding maritime aircraft, particularly—

Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) repeat the word "lie". He must now withdraw it.

The Minister was misleading the House of Commons.

Has the hon. Gentleman withdrawn the word "lie"?

Certainly. I withdraw the word "lie". The Minister was misleading the House of Commons.

That is enough. I call Sir Hector Monro.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Nimrod is an outstanding maritime patrol aircraft, particularly now that it has an air fueling capability? Does he also agree that the Shackelton has done magnificent service but is now becoming obsolescent? How long will it be before they are all retired?

I believe my hon. Friend knows that we have plans to replace the Shackleton AEW squadron with the Nimrod AEW squadron in about two years from now.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in his consideration of a possible successor for the Sea King helicopter.

Joint definition studies of the Anglo-Italian EH 101 anti-submarine warfare helicopter are complete. Industry foresees good sales prospects for commercial versions of EH 101, and we plan to move ahead with a fully integrated naval and commercial programme. Detailed arrangements are now being finalised and it is hoped to launch full development this summer.

I welcome that reply, but will the Minister ensure that the defence proportion of the development costs are made available to Westlands as they are required? Does he recognise that failure to do so will make the British forces dependent upon American equipment, which will have a severe effect upon the balance of purchases of defence equipment between the two countries?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence is one of the six active partners in this project. The first requirement is for the number of aircraft that would be required for the Royal Navy, so there is no question of a purchase from the United States.

While I welcome my hon. Friend's reply on this important project, which is of great significance to my constituents, may I ask what progress is being made by the Italian Government in their handling of this matter?

The Italian Government are taking through their Parliament a law that will provide the necessary funds for the Italian Ministry of Defence contribution, the contributions of Italian industry and the Italian Department of Industry having already been secured.

As someone with an equal constituency interest in the success of the Sea King, may I ask whether my hon. Friend accepts that we all know that we have a winner? Even if the Italian Government are, to say the least, tardy in completing their part, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government accept that they have a winner and that they will go ahead with it, whatever the cost?

I welcome my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the project, which of course I share. We have no reason to doubt the commitment of the Italian Government to the project. Both Governments foresee a market, on both the military and the civil side, for several hundred units.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the countries to which the United Kingdom has sold arms since May 1979.

Yes, Sir. I shall arrange for the information to be published.

Will the Minister ensure that Argentina is included, because British manufacturing industry and others involved in weapons manufacture are providing components for the French Exocets and the German frigates? Does he admit that, since Argentina has run short of money, the Tory Government have, through the British banks, allocated hundreds of millions of pounds to enable that country to buy the Exocets and frigates so that it can play further war games with British lives in the Falklands and elsewhere?

I have told the hon. Gentleman that the list will be published. He must wait and see what countries are included. As there are 84 countries, I should be surprised if Argentina were not among them—as it was while the Labour Government whom he supported were in office.

Before disposing by sales overseas of the third of a million or more self-loading rifles belonging to the British Army that are becoming obsolescent, will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that in the event of a future crisis barely 1 per cent, of the population of these islands will have a weapon available to them? Will he give careful consideration to the recent proposals advanced by General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley and Lord Hill-Norton for the formation on a large scale of a volunteer home defence force?

It is not the Government's intention to dispose of surplus self-loading rifles overseas.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition will have no part in a suggestion by superannuated old brass-hats for a home guard? Will the hon. Gentleman publish in the Official Report a list of long-term commercial agreements with countries supplying arms to Argentina that the Government feel it is still necessary to fulfil?

We have plans to publish only those agreements of which the defence sales organisation has had official notification and for which export licensing arrangements are required.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the United Kingdom can continue to make an effective maritime contribution to the Alliance in and out of area.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in addition to NATO assigned roles, tactical exercises and operational weapons trials, the Navy is committed in the south Atlantic, to the Gulf patrol and to the Gibraltar and Belize guardships at a time when he is running down the Navy? Is he aware that the forces committed to Germany are absorbing a growing percentage of our defence costs—as much as 50 per cent. by the late 1980s? Is he quite sure that he has his priorities right?

And the Opposition want to cut defence by a third.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) raises a number of important priorities for the Royal Navy. They have been carefully weighed in the overall priority of the Government's defence policy. Within the context of what we can afford, we are making a real contribution to the Royal Navy. For example, last year more money was spent on new construction for the Royal Navy than at any time during the past 19 years. There are now some 34 ships in the process of construction.

As there is a grave shortage of escort vessels, will my right hon. Friend undertake not to scrap, but to mothball, frigates until the type 23 frigates are in commission?

My hon. Friend must realise that in the end there comes a point in the life of a frigate when it must be scrapped. We have taken a decision to run on rather longer than was first intended the TRIBAL class frigates that were brought out of mothballing for the Falklands exercise.

How can the Minister give those assurances when he knows full well that on present plans the Navy will fall below strength by 1990? Does he admit that it will not be able to fulfil all its roles because the Government are determined to have Trident at any cost, and especially at the cost of our conventional defences?

The hon. Lady should consider that question carefully—especially today, when the Labour policy that has been announced will have the effect of reducing the annual defence expenditure of Britain by £4,500 million, which more than exceeds the cost of running the whole of the Royal Navy for a year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to announce the placing of further orders for new frigates for the Royal Navy.

It is our intention to place an order for the type 23 first of class next year. With regard to the batch III type 22 frigates, design work is well advanced at Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd. and we hope to go out to competitive tender for the fourth Falklands replacement ship shortly. We would then intend to place an order as soon as tenders have been evaluated.

Is my hon. Friend aware that delay continues to cause anxiety, especially for the Vosper Thornycroft shipyard at Woolston? Is he aware that that shipyard has the best export record for naval ships in the whole of British Shipbuilders? If it does not soon receive an order for a metal hull it will be unable to fulfil its historic role as a lead yard supplying the Royal Navy.

The order for a warship comes at a late stage in the procurement process. I do not accept my hon. Friend's comments about the delay. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence said in December that Vosper Thornycroft would be one of two shipyards that would be strong contenders for the fourth replacement frigate. It is for that yard to put in an irresistible tender if it wants the order.

Can the Minister say at which yard the type 23 order will be placed? Is he aware that yards on the Clyde are running short of work? When equipment for the type 23 is being considered, will he have a voice and view about export orders being achieved, especially for the ESM equipment?

It will be satisfactory if export orders can be obtained. We always take that important factor into account.

Is it the Government's policy to continue with the idea of having three designated warship builders as lead yards? If no order is placed soon with Vosper Thornycroft, it will not be possible for it to maintain its specialist design and construction team.

Of course, I recognise both the merits and the needs of Vosper Thornycroft. But ultimately the choice of yard and the number of yards available for building warships are matters for British Shipbuilders and not the Ministry of Defence. The MOD is the major customer, and therefore has a major interest, but it does not take decisions on such matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the nonproliferation treaty on the security of the United Kingdom.

The non-proliferation treaty has been an effective check on the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and has contributed to the security of all countries. We welcome the fact that there are now 120 parties to the treaty and we shall continue to encourage more countries to sign.

Since the dangers of nuclear proliferation are obvious, does my hon. Friend agree that wider adherence to the treaty can best be achieved if it is clear that every effort is being made by the nuclear powers to obtain multilateral, mutually balanced disarmament? As important talks are taking place in Geneva between the United States and the Soviet Union, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the British Government are making every effort to seek wider support for the treaty?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am happy to tell him that eight further countries have adhered to the treaty since 1978. The treaty states in article 6 that the parties to it must make their best efforts to secure multilateral nuclear and other disarmament. That is why it is important to support the proposals that President Reagan has made in the INF context and the START negotiations.

If it is so important for Britain to buy the Trident system, apparently, according to the Government, because it is good for us, why is it not good for other countries to do likewise?

That is not relevant to the non-proliferation treaty. [Interruption.] Opposition Members who laugh at that merely show that they have not read the treaty.

Does not article 6 place an obligation on the United Kingdom such as to prevent our purchasing Trident? At the 1980 review conference did not many of the non-nuclear powers become extremely critical of nuclear powers such as the United Kingdom for not reducing their dependence on nuclear weapons but rather increasing it? Would not getting rid of nuclear weapons help the non-proliferation treaty and the United Nations? Is that not the direction in which we should go?

Our purchase of Trident is no more a breach of the non-proliferation treaty than the modernisation by other countries, including the Soviet Union, of their existing systems. The treaty does not impose an obligation on existing nuclear states to allow their existing systems to decay.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will have further discussions with Defence Ministers in other countries on the installation of United States cruise missiles on British territory.

I meet my NATO ministerial colleagues periodically to discuss progress on implementing the decisions taken by the Alliance in December 1979 to modernise NATO's intermediate range nuclear forces, and to seek, by negotiation, limitations on intermediate range nuclear forces belonging both to the Soviet Union and the United States.

Does Mr. Reagan's new formula, which was announced this week, mean that not one single cruise missile will be deployed in Britain? If it does not mean that, is the Secretary of State aware that it is utterly unacceptable both to CND and Labour, whose manifesto this afternoon clearly states that there should be no cruise, no Trident and no nuclear bases on our territory?

I am aware of the contents of the Labour party statement this afternoon, which amounts to an abandonment of all the defence policies that the Labour party believed in when it was in power. I can think of no more reckless gamble than for the Labour party to turn its back on the policies that have guaranteed the peace of the Western world for 37 years.

Will the Government urge President Reagan to introduce into the INF negotiations the flexibility that was envisaged in 1979 at the time of the dual track decision—a linkage between intermediate missiles and strategic missiles? Without that flexibility we shall not be able to achieve satisfactory negotiations. The rigidity of trading off only SS20s against cruise and Pershing is the obstacle.

The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue which is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The House will be aware that President Reagan announced last week that he would make a further statement on the issue this week. It is the subject of close consultation between the Governments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the United Kingdom is an independent nuclear power makes, or should make, the conditions under which cruise missiles are deployed here quite different from those in other members of the Alliance?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety but he will be fully aware that the party of which vie are both members has long since accepted in government the joint decision arrangements with regard to existing American systems that are already deployed here. We believe that those systems and guarantees have worked and, therefore, we have accepted them with regard to cruise missiles.

Why do not the Government now recognise that the 1979 decision to locate cruise missiles was wrong, dangerous and has done more to damage the Western alliance than any other decision? In view of the deep division in the House and the country, why do the Government not now stop all work on cruise missiles until the British public have decided one way or the other in the traditional manner?

For the very reasons that the Secretary of State in the Labour Government at the NATO committee meeting just before the 1979 general election said that it was necessary for NATO to have nuclear weapons and to modernise them. All that we have done is carry the agreement that the Labour party reached in government to its logical conclusion.

Does the Secretary of State accept, in the light of MOD support for a naval base at Stornoway in the Western Isles and the possibility of cruise missiles being stationed there, that he ought to intercede with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister because of the opposition of the majority of people there to that decision and in view of a report from a committee set up by the Secretary of State saying that the interests of the islanders ought to be paramount?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had no consideration of such a proposal.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

Has the Prime Minister noticed the public advice from the new West German Chancellor, the Dutch Prime Minister, and the Italian Foreign Minister to President Reagan to break the deadlock on the Geneva talks on Euro-missiles this week? Why is she silent when even Republican senators are adding their voice to that view? Could that united effort to lift the shadow of nuclear war not have found just a small echo in her long speech on Saturday, or is she opposed to any interim proposals and any compromise on the zero option?

The hon. Gentleman can have listened neither to what I have said for several weeks nor to what I have said on television. I think that I was the first to point out that the original NATO. dual-track decision said that there must be equal numbers on both sides. The zero option came later. It would be far better if the hon. Gentleman directed his attention to the Soviet Union and asked it to reduce its missiles to nil. If the zero option—which is the best optionߞcannot be reached, we must have an option that provides for equal numbers on both sides, which does not include the British and French independent nuclear deterrent, and which is verifiable. There is nothing new in that.

As the Prime Minister has acknowledged that people over the age of retirement have a contribution to make, in running the National Coal Board, for example, will she now honour her manifesto pledge to abolish the earnings rule and allow elderly people to take up less exalted positions?

It is indeed our objective to abolish the earnings rule. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a time of considerable unemployment is not the best time to do that. Nor do I feel that it would be welcomed in all parts of the country if we chose to do so now.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the phenomenal success of the two Government schemes which provide microcomputers to schools on a scale that is unequalled in any other country? Has the time not now come to expand those schemes on a dramatic scale to take advantage of the enthusiasm and skills of all those young people?

I thank my hon. Friend. It was a great step forward to put microcomputers in every secondary school and then in every primary school so that our young people are skilled at an early age and thinking in terms of the type of jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Jobs?"]—and products that computers and computing skills can create. We have allocated some £40 million between now and 1986 for microcomputers in schools. There is also a scheme for training 11,000 teachers to be able to train pupils properly.

In view of the great significance for everyone of President Reagan's speech a few days ago on laser beam defence in space against intercontinental ballistic missiles, can the right hon. Lady tell the House what consultations there were with the British Government before that speech and what representations she made on the subject?

Consultations, none. We were informed that the speech would be made. I must point out that a fantastic amount of research must be done, and the President's speech was about research in this area. It is advisable to continue such research.

Does that mean that the right hon. Lady made no representations to hold up those proposals? How much will the proposals injure existing disarmament agreements, especially that reached between President Nixon and President Brezhnev about 10 years ago? Does it not mean that that treaty will be broken? What hope does she or anyone else believe there will be for new disarmament agreements if we tear up the old ones?

That speech, and what it proposed, has no effect at all on the anti-ballistic missile agreement. That agreement does not affect research and it does not come into operation until the development of new anti-ballistic missiles. There is a long way to go in research before we reach any development. I believe in research, but the right hon. Gentleman obviously does not.

It is not simply a question of research. Has the right hon. Lady taken into account the statement of the former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—[Interruption.] These are not laughing matters. We believe that such matters must be dealt with properly. Mr. Wiesner says that the statement "is really a declaration of a new cycle in the arms race." Have the Government nothing to say on the subject?

I am not unaware of scientific matters—[Interruption.] May I express my gratitude to the House for acknowledging that that is so, or at any rate for not arguing to the contrary. I believe in going ahead with that research. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that President Reagan made it clear that his proposals were consistent with United States' obligations under the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. The treaty remains in force and was reviewed by both parties last year, when there was mutual agreement that no amendment to it was necessary.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

Has my right hon. Friend found time to read the CBI policy document issued today, which states that freedom from planning agreements and from threats of nationalisation are essential for trade and industry to grow? Will she contrast that document, from those who understand industry and trade, with the reported contents of the document issued by the Labour party, which manifestly does not understand industry and trade?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is best for those in industry to be allowed to pursue their own organisation, products, marketing and financing in their own way. When they achieve the most competitive and best-designed products we shall achieve the greatest prosperity and the creation of jobs.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that it was highly misleading to publish selective crime statistics from one part of the country only and for fewer than 3 per cent. of all crimes? Does she agree that the way in which those selected crime statistics were presented was damaging to race relations, and will she confirm that the majority of black, as well as white, people in Britain are decent and law-abiding?

Indeed. One would not quarrel with that, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary simply answered the question that was asked.

My right hon. Friend will undoubtedly have had her attention drawn to the most recent annual report of Freedom House, which categorises Grenada as being within the hard core of the Communist system. Is she aware that not only Grenada but about one quarter of the member countries of the Commonwealth are now one-party states? Does she not consider this a most serious breach of the principles of the Commonwealth? As she will undoubtedly be leading the United Kingdom delegation to the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, will she ensure that these matters are discussed as soon as possible?

I am sure that my hon. Friend has strong views about one-party states, as quite a number of us have. However, my hon. Friend would be the first to realise that, once countries are independent, they are free to pursue their own systems. The Commonwealth sets its own standards, and I am afraid that there is no exclusion of those who operate as one-party states.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 March.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time off from her engagements today to say what were the special reasons that made her agree to the appointment of the executioner of the British steel industry, Mr. Ian MacGregor, to become the undertaker of the coal industry? Was it a fit of pique to get even with the miners? What will it cost the British taxpayer to get rid of this expensive American citizen from his position at the National Coal Board?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy dealt with this matter yesterday. Mr. MacGregor was appointed because of his excellent record, especially in coal. He took his own business into the coal industry, made it the third Largest producer in the United States, and invested heavily in coal at a time when others did not. We appointed him because we believe that he is the best person for the job.

In greeting the second coming of the social contract, does my right hon. Friend recall that the last time we had this animal the Government gave and the trade unions received? Is it not grotesque and inherently wrong that a Government should have a contract with a privileged and protected group in society such as the trade union leaders?

Yes. It is totally and utterly wrong that a Government should represent one section of society and not others—[HoN. MEMBERS: "That is what the Government do."] The Labour Government attempted to have a social contract with the TUC, and when people asked who was more powerful, the then Prime Minister or Mr. Jones, the answer was "Mr. Jones". That is totally wrong. People were fed up with the social contract, which took Britain to the highest rate of inflation in modern times.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

Will the right hon. Lady take time, if she has not already done so, to read the editorials of most newspapers condemning the appointment of Ian MacGregor as chairman of the National Coal Board, which is reputed to be entirely her appointment? Will she ensure that during his transitional period between the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board under no circumstances will he depart from the decision reached in the House in December 1982, when it was made crystal clear that the five major plants would be inviolate and that Ravenscraig would remain in exactly the same position as it is at present?

The announcement about the five major BSC plants was that decisions would be taken by the Government. The statement also said that one can never guarantee a plant a future for all time, regardless of performance. If the hon. Gentleman looks back to that statement, he will find that that is so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the recent report of the CBI on expectations in industry, which shows a remarkable upturn in its expectations for output? Is it not time that those who enjoyed commenting on the gloom of previous studies took pleasure in the optimism of this one?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The latest monthly report of the CBI shows that more firms expect to increase their output and that export order books have increased sharply. That is very good news. The optimism is more widespread than it was and there is a real chance that we are firmly on the road to recovery.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 March.

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

Will the right hon. Lady tell the House which she thinks will come first—a reduction in the number of company bankruptcies or a reduction in the number of unemployed under her Government?

If the hon. Gentleman looks back to some of the speeches made by members of the Labour party he will find that there is always a time lag in reducing the number of unemployed. It happens that I have a quote with me. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said at a bankers' banquet in 1976.

"There is a time lag of up to a year between the increase in output and the fall in unemployment it produces."

Mr Frank Hooley, on a point of order.

May I take if after the introduction of the new Member?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed, I draw your attention to the fact that there is some unwanted political propaganda on the Table and obliterating the Mace—at least there was, but it has now gone.