asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the North Atlantic Alliance has reduced the size of its short-range nuclear battlefield weapon stockpile in Europe as a result of the review to which he referred on 29 March, Official Report, c. 168.

The Alliance is committed to maintaining the number of shorter-range nuclear weapons at the minimum consistent with effective deterrence. The stockpile is being and will be kept under review to that end. NATO has already withdrawn 1,000 nuclear warheads from Europe and has announced its intention of withdrawing one additional warhead for each Pershing II or ground-launched cruise missile deployed in Europe.

Is the Minister aware that about 1,200 short-range nuclear weapons are still deployed in Europe by NATO, and about 950 are deployed by the Warsaw Pact? As NATO will not give a "no first use" commitment for those weapons, and as, anyway, strict political control over their use cannot be guaranteed once hostilities begin, do not those weapons constitute the gravest possible threat of unleashing an uncontrolled nuclear exchange and subsequent escalation? What steps is the Minister therefore taking to respond to Soviet proposals for an extended nuclear-free battlefield zone in central Europe?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary contains many questions. I have explained before the disadvantages of a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone, and those disadvantages are still valid. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about a "no first use" declaration, NATO has a much better policy than that of the Soviet Union, and that is no first use of any weapons, nuclear or conventional. We will never use any weapons unless attacked. On the numbers of battlefield nuclear weapons, the hon. Gentleman was approximately right when he said that the Russians were building up their nuclear capable artillery fairly rapidly, according to our assessment.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a perfectly respectable defence case for scaling down the number of tactical nuclear weapons that we have in western Europe, many of which are very elderly, and spending some of the money on improving our conventional capability? However, will my hon. Friend assure the House that one of the reasons why we deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the first place is that the Soviet Union and its allies have a massive preponderance of conventional forces?

There may be a case for reducing the number of our battlefield nuclear weapons. It is a question that we are carefully reviewing. It is a complicated question on which it will take some time to come to a conclusion. However, I should point out that if we aim at abolishing our reliance on nuclear weapons, which, I understand, is the policy of the Opposition—indeed, if they could, they would persuade NATO to abolish a deterrent policy based on nuclear weapons — all our conventional weapons, however big, would have the value of scrap metal.

I am not quite certain what the Minister thinks he is talking about. That is certainly not Labour party policy. In view of the developments of modern technology on the changing battlefield environment, and as it could lead to a complete disavowal of all battlefield nuclear weapons, should not the Government pursue such a policy more vigorously? Has not such a policy widespread support in the whole of the Western world, from such diverse people as Monsignor Bruce Kent and the American Catholic hierarchy?

If the hon. Gentleman is questioning what I said about Labour policy, I shall quote the Labour party policy document, paragraph 198:

"We wish to see NATO itself develop a non-nuclear strategy".

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list the organisations he consulted before making his statement to the House on 14 April about the armed forces participation in the youth training scheme.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in questions following his statement on 14 April, his consultations were with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern that exists about the deliberate use of mass unemployment as an economic weapon to persuade young people to undertake a term of military training? Is the Minister not ashamed that the Government have reduced the freedom of choice for young people so that they can now choose only between joining the Army and joining the dole queue? When will the Government give unemployed young people real jobs and real training instead of insulting them with a uniform and £15 a week?

There is no question of conscription. The scheme is voluntary to those who take part. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's view, many people believe that the scheme provides a wonderful opportunity to join our excellent armed services, experience what they can contribute and have a good start in life.

Does my hon. Friend agree that most people in Britain will think that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is wrong? Does my hon. Friend agree that our armed forces have unique facilities and unique personnel to undertake the role that they are given?

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right.

Will the young people be trained exclusively in military subjects? If so, would it not be better to call the programme a recruitment scheme rather than a youth employment scheme? If the young people are to be taught trades, what proportion of military resources will be devoted to the scheme and taken away from training our soldiers? Why did the Minister not consult the trade unions to discover their views?

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) on his first appearance in his new capacity.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans an early meeting with the United States Secretary of Defence to discuss cooperation in defence matters.

I plan to visit the United States later this month and look forward to taking the opportunity to discuss matters of mutual interest with the Secretary of Defence.

In case my right hon. Friend discovers when he gets to the United States that opinion is influenced unduly by some of the media here, will he convey to his distinguished American colleague that although the British cordially dislike the nuclear weapon and expect the Government to press on with supervised, balanced disarmament, in the meantime they are quietly, but firmly, of the view that the weapon must be retained in defence of the Western world?

I shall certainly ensure that those sentiments are conveyed to my American opposite number. My hon. Friend will be aware that since they were elected the Government have made clear their commitment to the twin track policy of negotiated disarmament or the deployment of intermediate range missiles.

Is the right hon. Gentleman likely to bring up the question of dual control, because many of us who are satisfied with the present arrangements know that many people wish nuclear weapons to be retained, but are genuinely concerned that they could be used without our consent? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are in danger of losing the argument when we have the best case going?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the measured terms of his question. All of us who have served in the House behind Governments of various persuasions have a responsibility to make it clear that the degree of control that we have over American weapons and bases in Britain, in respect of cruise missiles, is the same as we have had over all other similar American systems since the 1950s.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming mass of people in Britain want to be the allies of the United States, but do not want Britain to be a satellite of the United States? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he misleads the House when he says that the cruise missile system follows the agreement between Prime Minister Attlee and Harry Truman in 1951, and that we are dealing here not with nuclear bases but with a nuclear weapon that can be used, and will be used —if it is used at all—on the roads of Britain and from any base anywhere?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want Britain to be an American satellite, but I do not know anyone in the country who does. I do not, therefore, see the purpose of the question. All that this Government are doing is to continue the nuclear policies to which the last Government were so firmly committed. I cannot see what issue of principle is at stake.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is wrong? The Government are ensuring that we become a satellite of the United States. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cruise missile agreement, apart from the fact that the people of Britain do not want it and have shown that they do not, gives to the United States the power, alone, to set the missile off without consulting us in any way whatsoever?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the United States President and Britain's Prime Minister always reaffirm the terms of the 1951 agreement, which specifically provides that no weapons or bases used by the Americans under agreements with us will be used without the joint decision of the President and the Prime Minister.

When my right hon. Friend meets the American Secretary for Defence, will he impress upon him that if the United States expects to sell defence equipment to Britain there should be a completely open door for Britain to sell back to the United States? Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that Mr. Caspar Weinberger does his best to impress upon Congress the need to wipe out the specialty metals amendment?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a matter of concern. The Administration have persuaded Congress to pass a waiver to enable us to sell specialty metals to the United States and are seeking to extend that waiver from September this year. I shall do my best with the Secretary for Defence to confirm his enthusiasm for that and, on the Hill, to speak to appropriate Senators and Congressmen.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom's conventional defences of the decision to buy Trident.

On present projections, our spending on conventional forces will be substantially higher throughout the period of Trident's procurement than it is at present.

Does that not mean that the Royal Navy will be ill-equipped and, indeed, sorely pressed to fight any conventional war in the future? Is it not a travesty that we can engage in such lavish expenditure when reports from the Falklands indicate that our troops there suffered from trench foot and that we were unable to supply them with such basic items as boots?

Of course I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to learn the appropriate lessons from the Falklands war. It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should show concern for the detail of conventional force expenditure when the policy to which he is committed would wipe out £4,500 million a year from defence expenditure.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the proposition that an error of judgment under successive Governments in the 1960s effectively lowered the nuclear threshold by relying completely on the nuclear umbrella and giving insufficient priority to the conventional equipment programme? Will my right hon. Friend please bear in mind that many of us place the greatest reliance on this and successive Governments completing the procurement programme set out in recent White Papers?

I support my hon. Friend's general conclusion. We want to raise the nuclear threshold and ensure that the best possible conventional equipment is available to our armed services. That is one of the reasons why this Government have increased the level of defence expenditure as they have. As this Government know, and as the last Government knew, there is no escape from the fact that behind that conventional force we shall need nuclear deterrence if we are to provide a credible deterrence to the Soviets at every level.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the real umbrella for NATO is and always has been the conventional British fleet, which he and his predecessors have sought to cut? Is he aware, for example, that for the price of Trident we could obtain 24 Invincible class carriers or 21 hunter-killer submarines? Moreover, is he aware that there was no agreement in 1951 relating to weapons? He is quite wrong about that. The agreement was about bases, and bases alone.

If there is an agreement about bases, one cannot very well use the weapons systems on those bases unless that is covered by agreement on the weapons. If the right hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back to just before polling day 1979, 'when the Conservatives were elected, he will recall that the Labour Government's views were clearly set out in the NATO communiqué, in which the Labour Secretary of State for Defence stated the Government's views. I will quote briefly the Labour Government's views about their nuclear commitment to place the defence debate in context. The Labour Secretary of State with his NATO colleagues said:

"Ministers reaffirmed that NATO could not rely on conventional forces alone for credible deterrence in Europe; and that, without increasing dependence on nuclear weapons or prejudicing long-term defence improvements in conventional forces, it would be necessary to maintain and modernise theatre nuclear forces."

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the extra annual cost of substituting conventional weapons for all nuclear weapons up to the level of the United Kingdom's current defence capability and commitments.

Nuclear weapons are an essential element of our deterrent capability for which no amount of investment in conventional forces could provide an adequate substitute.

Does not my hon. Friend's reply demonstrate clearly that if we abandoned our nuclear deterrent, modest though it is compared with that of the Americans or the Russians, we should not only weaken our defence capability but accelerate our defence expenditure?

If we tried to rely on a build-up of conventional forces in place of our nuclear deterrent, this would be very expensive indeed. General Rogers of SACEUR has proposed that NATO should raise its sights and aim at a 4 per cent. increase in spending in real terms per annum simply to raise the nuclear threshold. If we tried to achieve parity with the Russians in conventional weapons the cost would be enormous. If at the same time we gave up our nuclear deterrent, it would also be utterly useless.

Is the Minister aware that conventional forces can provide a credible defence without the bomb, that they are less expensive than the Government claim and that the Labour Government will be able to provide such forces from a growing economy instead of the shrinking economy bequeathed by the Conservatives, in which GDP is only 93 per cent. of what it was when Labour left office?

If the hon. Lady regards nuclear forces as dispensable, why did the Labour Secretary of State in 1979 sign the communiqué to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many military installations there are in the Greater London council area.

About 70.

Will my hon. Friend take urgent steps to tell Comrade Andropov that London is now a nuclear-free zone, so if he wishes to target missiles on the United Kingdom we should be grateful if he would target them elsewhere? If my hon. Friend receives something of a raspberry by way of a reply, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to do something about the current monstrous and extravagant advertising campaign in the GLC area?

I think that my hon. Friend is straying into areas of responsibility covered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I share his view of the uselessness of declaring nuclear-free zones in the modern world. He might as well declare his own house to be a thunderstorm-free zone.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the most popular military installation in the GLC area is Kneller Hall in Twickenham, where the Royal Military School of Music trains British Army bands which are the envy of the world and whose high standard of excellence is inextricably linked with Kneller Hall, which I hope will long continue?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's deep interest in the future of Kneller Hall. I shall certainly bear his comments in mind. I am sure that the whole House agrees with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning the deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

So far this year I have received about 130 letters per month from Members of Parliament and from members of the public on matters relating to the deployment of United States cruise missiles in this country.

Is it because the Government have clearly lost the argument on cruise that they now resort to a policy of smears, innuendo and harassment of their critics while refusing, as the Secretary of State has, to engage in open debate with their critics? As the Secretary of State is supposed to be leading the campaign against CND, why did he not attend last Sunday's demonstration, when he could have joined a handful of people and a dog? Was it because there was no glamour in it, or because it was raining?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, CND announced a few days ago that it intended to attack the Conservatives in the marginal constituencies, and it is its democratic right to do so. Nevertheless, I thought it right to make it clear to those judging the decision taken that the majority of the elected council of CND were from the Left—varying from the Labour party through to the Communist party. That is a matter of fact, not a smear.

Will my right hon. Friend be careful with CND? Does he agree that it would be disastrous for the Conservative party if CND collapsed, as it is most important to our chances of re-election? Does he agree that Labour Members who seem to be motivated by pacifist fantasies should watch television at the weekend to see what goes on in countries such as Poland, where tear gas and water cannon are used against people, and reflect that the reason why we need adequately to defend ourselves is to ensure that we do not have a society that descends to actions of that kind?

My hon. Friend eloquently makes a point that I believe will have been borne in on British people at the weekend. As for any danger to Conservative re-election prospects and the collapse of CND, I take issue with my hon. Friend. So long as the Labour party remains, we shall be re-elected.

The Secretary of State has clearly forgotten the activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary with tear gas and water cannon in Northern Ireland from 1969 onwards. Perhaps he will concentrate on the argument about cruise. Does he agree that the agreement covers bases and not weapons, and that once the weapons are dispersed from the bases the British Government will have no control over their use?

In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why he was content to accept such an agreement in relation to the F111 bomber?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many senior non-commissioned officers will be required to supervise and train the unemployed young people who are to be taken into the armed services under the Government's recent proposals.

Participants in the armed services youth training scheme will train and work alongside other service men and women. It is therefore not practicable to say how many senior non-commissioned officers will be involved in their supervision and training.

Is it not surprising that the Manpower Services Commission's staffing is tightly restricted while this gimmick is so frivolously pursued? Will the Minister re-examine the commitment of senior NCOs? Does he accept that military efficiency depends to a large extent on them and that they will be diverted from essential duties in this frivolous approach?

I take the view that they will be employed on essential duties. The scheme is neither frivolous nor a waste of time. The services will contribute about £1 million towards the scheme, which will be of great benefit to a large number of young people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's attitude to this excellent new scheme is entirely misguided? Does he agree that the scheme will give young men a wonderful opportunity to be involved in outward bound activities and to learn about discipline and character development, which should stand them and their country in good stead for the future?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition line reveals a patent dislike of all matters relating to defence.

If any of the young service men are severely injured during the course of their duties, other than on military action, will they retain the right to sue for negligence that they now have as civilians, or will they lose that right, as all service men lose it under section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947?

Section 10 of that Act will apply to the young service men in the same way as it applies to all service men. The right hon. Gentleman makes a slightly poor point, because service men can obtain generous disability and other pensions for the remainder of their lives, which are substitutes for the right enjoyed by an ordinary civilian to sue an employer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost of air defences of the Falkland Islands in 1983–84.

Air defence is the responsibility of various elements of the garrison. It is not practicable to separate the cost of this function from that of their other roles.

Does the Minister agree that to pour £800 million into the peat bogs of the Falklands to build yet another airfield would be a grotesque waste of taxpayers' money? Is it not time that the Foreign Secretary got on with some sensible negotiations?

The hon. Gentleman must accept responsibility for his statement about the cost of the airfield. We have not yet received the tenders. The building of the airfield was recommended by Lord Shackleton, and we believe it to be essential for the Falklands in the present circumstances.

Is not the most fundamental issue in the defence of the Falklands the provision of a new airfield? When will that decision be made?

I expect a decision to be reached fairly soon. As I said, we have not yet received the tenders. I agree that the airfield is essential for military as well as civil purposes on the Falklands. Among other things, it will make the task of reinforcement very much easier.

Has the Minister noticed today's press reports that the Argentine might undertake a hit-and-run raid to mark its independence day later this month? Is he satisfied with the airborne early warning facilities, the air defence ground environment of No. 23 Squadron, the maritime organic air defence and, especially, the radar facilities of both the Phantoms and Harriers?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his return to the Opposition Front Bench and wish him a long period there.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are proposals for extending the Ministry of Defence activities at Prestwick airport.

We are considering an extension to HMS Gannet, the Royal Navy helicopter unit at Prestwick to replace facilities which date from the second world war.

Quite apart from that, how does the Minister explain the contradiction between his statement to me in a written answer that there had been no discussions with the Americans about the setting up of a strategic distribution centre at Prestwick, and the statement a week later by the Secretary of State for Scotland that there had been discussions but the proposals were abandoned? What guarantee do we have that such proposals will not be resurrected by Congress without any consultation with us?

I understand that the United States Air Force had an internal plan to build a warehouse at Prestwick—

Why did the hon. Gentleman not know that?

The plan was not funded by Congress and therefore no formal application was put to the Government.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a strong case for restoring a flying role to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force at Prestwick, in view of the excellent facilities there?

As the White Paper stated last year, that matter is under consideration. I cannot say whether such a flying unit will be based at Prestwick, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the rate of change in the balance of nuclear intermediate range weapons between the Warsaw Pact and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries.

The Warsaw Pact has about 4,000 intermediate range nuclear weapons, while the equivalent NATO total is under 1,000. Although these figures for weapons systems have remained fairly constant for the last few years, the figure for actual warheads has shown a marked increase for the Warsaw Pact. Since 1977 the number of Soviet warheads on systems targeted on western Europe has increased by over 700 with the deployment of the SS20 missile. NATO has no comparable system and the planned NATO modernisation programme will entail no increase in NATO warhead numbers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Does not his answer underline two points? First, would not anyone having a scintilla of doubt about Russia's desire to reduce tension in Europe and reduce its nuclear arsenal have his reservations utterly justified? Secondly, is not the deployment of cruise not only a replacement for our more obsolete weapons, but a direct response to the deployment of SS20s by the Russians?

I agree with my hon. Friend that, on the basis of Soviet action, we can only be pessimistic about that country's intentions. I hope that if we remain resolute and united in NATO in our negotiating posture the Russians will, in due course, agree to some sensible arrangement to reduce the number of SS20s that they have deployed.

As American officials favouring agreement have been removed, is the Minister convinced that Washington really wants any arms negotiations to succeed?

I do not know to which officials the hon. Gentleman is referring. He may be referring to Mr. Rostow, but he would be drawing false conclusions if he read into that change of personnel any sign of a weakening of the American desire to reach agreement, whether in the INF or the START negotiations. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Americans have put forward bold proposals for reductions. We need a sensible response from the Soviet Union.

Can the Minister confirm that the Warsaw Pact intermediate range weapons are targeted not only on this country but on a number of other countries that do not have intermediate range weapons?

I have no evidence about the targets of the Soviet weapons, but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now revise the published figure on the number of American bases in the United Kingdom.

In addition to those bases and facilities listed in previous answers should be added RAF Kemble, which, as forecast in a parliamentary answer by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 20 January, has recently been made available to the United States Air Force for aircraft and equipment maintenance work. Poole and Wincombe should be deleted from the lists as they are no longer used by the United States forces.

Why did the Minister not publish the right figures in the first place? Who is fooling who? Are President Reagan and his officials fooling the Minister, or is the Minister fooling and misleading the House by giving it misleading and untrue information about the number of American bases? Why should the British people not know how many American bases, run by foreign powers, are on British soil?

We have published details of the number of bases and facilities used by the United States in Britain —indeed, we did so recently. One of the problems of Opposition Members is that they seem unable to distinguish between a base and a facility. They originally asked about bases, and they received an answer about bases. They subsequently alleged that there were more than 100 United States bases and facilities in Britain. I have discovered that there are two petrol stations, not one as I previously told the House. I discovered the second in Glasgow. An example of the Opposition's ridiculous accusations is the mooring in Poole harbour. It is unmanned and contains one ship.

When will my hon. Friend give the House further information about the facilities that the Americans will reqire at RAF Kemble in my constituency? What details can he give us?

The purpose of the United States' forces at Kemble is to maintain equipment. I do not believe that aircraft will be based there.

Does the 1951 agreement cover facilities as well as bases?

Yes, indeed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the liberation of Europe from Facism would have been impossible but for the American forces based in this country? Does he further agree that the overwhelming majority of people in this country appreciate deeply what the United States is doing, and has done for the past 35 years, to maintain the peace and freedom of Great Britain and western Europe?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. United States forces have been in this country continuously since the Berlin blockade of 1948 and have helped us to ensure that we remain at peace and freedom. I was interested in a recent gallup poll which showed that the majority of people support the presence of the United States bases in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has so far been made in the introduction of MINIS in his Department.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 1 March. The first, trial, MINIS round in the Ministry of Defence is now under way and is proceeding satisfactorily.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that MINIS is as important to good decision making in his new Department as it was in his old Department?

Yes, I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with official efforts to promote the basic arguments for multilateral disarmament, both of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons.

I think there is now greater public understanding of the Government's policy of deterrence and multilateral disarmament; but my ministerial colleagues and I will continue to take every suitable opportunity to put the message across.

Further to that answer, for which I thank my right hon. Friend, does he agree that there is every sign now that the CND campaign is over the top? If so, what second thoughts among the British people have turned it into the campaign for nihilistic defeat?

I do not believe that it is for me to think of new names for the organisation, although I appreciate my hon. Friend's constructive endeavour. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is against NATO, Great Britain's independent nuclear deterrence and having a nuclear deterrence behind our conventional forces. In that respect it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of British people.

When will the Secretary of State publish this year's defence White Paper?

I hope to do so shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the simplest and most cogent reason for this country retaining a nuclear deterrent was that put to me the other day in a factory by a constituent who said, "T'other beggar's got bomb. We keep bomb."?

My hon. Friend must articulate his views in his own way. The single greatest reason for maintaining our nuclear deterrence is that for 38 years we have kept the peace, and to do anything other than pursue the policies that have guaranteed that peace would be a gamble. The Government will not gamble with the nation's defence.

When considering the arguments for multilateral disarmament, is the reason why the Secretary of State and the Government are not present at the Geneva talks either that the Americans and the Russians do not regard us as important enough or that they regard the possession by Great Britain of nuclear weapons as utterly irrelevant to their discussions?

It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should have spent so much time supporting a Labour Government who attached so much importance to the British independent nuclear deterrent. He knows well, as I do, that one cannot be a member of an alliance that has many members and expect all of them to negotiate with the one country that represents a significant threat—the Soviet Union. We work in trust with our American allies, as did the Labour party when in power, and we negotiate with them in private about the terms which they present to the Soviet Union. That is the only practical way in which the Alliance can work.

The Minister has not answered the question. Will he explain why, if the possession of Great Britain's nuclear weapons is so importat, we are not at Geneva?

The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the present focus of attention in Geneva is on the intermediate range deployment of cruise weapons. Those are American weapons and we are consulted deeply about the negotiations. We are not, in the context of those negotiations, discussing Great Britain's independent nuclear system.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason he failed to include the United States base in Liverpool in his list of United States bases in the United Kingdom; and what purpose the base at Liverpool port fulfils.

There is no United States "base" in Liverpool. There is a United States army office, which handles shipping documentation.

Does the Minister expect the people of Merseyside to believe that this facility, which is constantly in evidence in the docks, is there merely to bring in tins of salmon and condensed milk? Will he give a categoric assurance that nuclear materials and equipment are not coming into Liverpool docks? Will he state categorically that nuclear materials and equipment in connection with the siting of cruise missiles in Great Britain have not already arrived in this country?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we never say whether nuclear equipment and weapons are or are not present at a particular location. The staff at this installation consist of two United States army personnel and six United Kingdom civilians, including one cleaner.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 May.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also spoke to Mrs. Gandhi on the telephone to mark the 50th anniversary of the opening of telephone services between this country and India. Later I attended a memorial service for Lord Boyd of Merton at Westminster Abbey. 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.

Will the Prime Minister tell us today, if she is not yet ready to name the day, what type of result there would have to be in the local elections on Thursday to make her believe that she could safely go to the country in June? Does she feel that waiting for the results to come out of the Conservative central office computer is an example of the resolute approach?

When I decide to seek an election it will be announced in the usual way. Until then, it is business as usual.

When my right hon. Friend is discussing the likely policy for rates, will she bear in mind that there are two minimum requirements? The first is that rates should be kept down, or reduced, for industry and business, because high rates cost jobs. The second is that something should be done to prevent the outrageous and grossly extravagant rate rises by many Labour-controlled local authorities.

I agree wholly with my hon. Friend. It is important for jobs in industry and commerce to keep the rates down. Many businesses are suffering from high rates, which are putting some small businesses into acute difficulty. In any case, it is important to control public expenditure and it is as important for local authorities to do that as it is for the Government. The lesson is that Tory councils are much better at controlling public expenditure than Labour councils.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that under her Government tax increases have gone up eight times faster than rate increases? When she talks about "business as usual", is she referring to the latest prophecy from the European Commission about unemployment rates during the next three or four years under present policies? Does she agree with its estimate that there will be an increase of 500,000 on the present appalling total if those policies are continued?

With regard to taxes, real take-home pay for those on average earnings fell under Labour. Under us, it has risen. For the first four years of the Labour Government real take-home pay for men on average earnings fell by more than 8 per cent. Under us it has risen by 4 per cent. Real take-home pay means pay after tax has been paid.

Can the right hon. Lady tell the House from where the European Commission acquired those figures and on what estimate they are based? Does she agree that taxes imposed by the Government have risen eight times faster than rate increases imposed by local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative controlled?

The tax burden — that is the proportion of gross income taken in all tax payments—increased more under the Labour Government than it has under the present Government.

Will my right hon. Friend find time, if not today, certainly before Thursday's local elections, to visit Prince Albert Avenue, Manchester, where two properties owned by the Labour-controlled Manchester council have been empty for eight years and 19 years respectively? Is it not outrageous that a Labour-controlled council can treat needy families with such disdain? Furthermore, is it not a scandal that those two properties are in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who is the Opposition spokesman on such matters?

My hon. Friend is right. There are a considerble number of vacant council properties. The last count revealed that there were about 100,000 vacant council properties, of which about 19,000 had been vacant for more than a year.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 May.

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

As the Prime Minister appears to be confident about winning the next election, why does she not have the guts to announce a June election?

As I stated earlier, I shall not be hustled by anyone. When I seek an election, I shall announce it in the usual way. Until then, we shall have business as usual.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend have a discussion today with the Secretary of State for Industry, who on Friday visited Thorn-EMI-Ferguson, which is in my constituency? Is she aware that productivity at that factory, which manufactures television sets, has increased by 500 per cent. during the past 10 years? Is she further aware that Thorn-EMI-Ferguson has created more than 500 jobs since January and that another 100 jobs are to be announced shortly in my constituency? Is that not good news for Britain?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the magnificent response of that company to overseas competition. It decided to invest in the latest design and production techniques and it has beaten the overseas competition. That company is not alone. Many others are doing the same.

Is the Prime Minister's forecast of an upturn in the economy based on the fact that the pound will not increase in value? If there is any chance of that happening, will she intervene to stop it?

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the rules of intervention and exactly how it is done. The Government intervene only to keep an orderly market or to stop sudden and volatile changes. The Government can never intervene to defend a specific rate. As to forecasts, the pound could rise a good deal yet without affecting export forecasts.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who voted Liberal in the previous county council elections in Northamptonshire, hoping that they would keep the Labour party out, wound up with a Labour minority council propped up by a somewhat comic and vague Liberal rump, with consequent large rate increases and great pressures on the local business community? Will my right hon. Friend use her objective authority to advise the electorate not to make the same mistake next Thursday?

For rating authorities in England, the general rate increase when Labour is in control is about 25 per cent. higher than when the Conservative party is in control. It is important to get and keep the Conservative party in control, and the only way to do that is to vote Conservative.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

As the House of Commons' favourite own-goal merchant, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, was warned two years ago by his own Department of the danger of contaminated blood supplies coming from the United States, will the Prime Minister rectify that deplorable and disgraceful mistake by immediately authorising the necessary expenditure within the National Health Service to make Britain independent in its blood supplies?

We first need to find out a good deal more about the incident and the causes that have been reported before coming to any conclusion.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the splendid contribution that is being made to the provision of new jobs in Britain by the legitimate video and tape industry? Is she aware that new jobs are likely to increase as a result of the private Member's Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden)? Will my right hon. Friend encourage further reforms of the Copyright Act designed to protect the legitimate audio tape industry from home taping? Enormous job opportunities exist in this industry if the Government can further reform copyright law.

My hon. Friend is correct in assuming that although Britain has not produced many video recorders—we are just beginning to do so—their advent has created many jobs in the retail trade and in the cassette industry. I agree that it is vital to stop the pirating of cassettes, and the private Member's Bill is designed to do that. Such pirating is totally unfair to those who produce cassettes and will soon stop the business. The Government will do everything possible to ensure that the pirating is stopped.

Does the Prime Minister approve of reports in the Scottish press that, because of a major miscalculation by the Department of Education and Science, about 4,000 qualified applicants for Scottish universities have been deprived of access to the higher institutes of learning, and does this not smack less of the resolute approach and more of the Philistine approach on the Government's part in allowing that to happen?

If we examine the number of people in the age group who qualify for degrees, we find that Britain has one of the best records in Europe. By measuring the degrees given by age group, one finds that Britain performs strongly — better than Germany and about the same as France. Britain's participation rate in full-time degree courses has improved quite markedly since we took office — from 12·4 to 13·2 per cent. [Interruption.] Scottish students come to English universities and English students go to Scottish universities. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Scottish universties come under the University Grants Committee.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will state her oficial engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

Has the Prime Minister had time to read about the events in Poland during the weekend, when peaceful Solidarity marchers were brutally attacked by the Polish Communist police? Will she give an assurance that no Polish citizen will be sent back from Britain against his or her will while that state of affairs persists?

The hon. Gentleman knows that Britain has kept many Polish people for precisely that reason. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's record in that sphere is extremely good. The object lesson for this country, and that of the Opposition, is that Britain must defend the peace with freedom and justice.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States, far from wishing to withdraw from the Holy Loch base, as has been suggested by the deputy Leader of the Labour party, for Labour party internal reasons, has recently announced that it wishes to remain there until the end of the century? Will she encourage the United States to keep its bases here in our long-term interest and that of the Atlantic community?

Yes, certainly. The American bases in this country are part of our defence, and Europe is part of America's defence. It is vital that NATO should stick together, otherwise our defence will cease to be sure.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 3 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is supported by the principal of Edinburgh university and by many other academics in Scottish universities, who legitimately point out that because of an error by her Government an additional 1,000 school leavers are being denied places at Scottish universities? Will the right hon. Lady take immediate steps to rectify that error and give those young people the opportunity of higher education that they deserve, instead of inflicting her Victorian values on them by turning the clock back and trying to turn our universities into Victorian finishing schools for an exclusive, tiny, elitist minority?

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, but there is nothing unusual in that. If there is any chance that an error has been made, it will be dealt with by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Scotland. In the meantime, as I have pointed out, this country's record of achievement in higher education, as a percentage of the age group, is excellent.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the origin of clauses 9 and 10, which the new clauses with which we are about to deal are intended to replace. It was that the Philips Royal Commission recommended that there should be additional capacity for the police to investigate serious crime. It believed—and set out copious reasons for that —that the existing law on the powers of the police to investigate serious crime was haphazard, piecemeal and in need of reform. The greater part of the section of the report dealing with those matters was concerned with material held on a confidential basis. In the Bill as printed, clause 10 sets out the procedures that the Government believed to be right not only to give additional powers to the police at the investigation stage but to respect the important matter of confidentiality and the rights of individual.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and am impressed that he has managed to tuck in a couple of definitions about a matter that will not arise, as a result of the selection, until we come to later clauses. However, I should like his undertaking that he will at some stage define rather more closely what exactly excluded and special procedure materials are, as that will make this clause intelligible.

My hon. Friend knows that new clauses 3, 4 and 5 deal with definitions of excluded material and of special procedure material, and with the definition of legally privileged material and of personal records. I am happy to justify those definitions in due course.

Is my assumption correct about what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about excluded material being completely outside the capacity of the judge to rule? Does that mean that if a journalist obtained information that a bomb was to be exploded by the IRA in particular circumstances, the result of the clause would be that no order could be made to obtain that information from the journalist?

Excluded material is material that may not be sought and in respect of which a judge may not make an order under the terms of new clauses 3, 4 and 5. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman envisages, it is difficult to see how evidence that relates to such an event would not be covered by the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That Act is not touched upon by the provisions of the Bill in that respect. In other respects in which evidence would be held—of a kind relating to criminal purposes, for example—it is difficult to see how that could be held by somebody other than a person who was taking part, in one way or another, in the relevant criminal offences, and therefore that person could be arrested and a search could take place with a warrant of arrest.

"means anything that would be admissible in evidence at a trial for the offence."

If one is not a lawyer, one always asks questions on these esoteric matters with trepidation. However, could my hon. and learned Friend explain what "reasonable grounds for believing" would be, what

"not reasonably practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry"

I understand my hon. Friend's point and it was raised from time to time in Committee, and has been raised in every other Standing Committee dealing with any matters of the law on which I have ever had the privilege of serving. Lawyers make much more money out of law that is over-precisely tailored to every conceivable circumstance that Parliament can envisage than they do our of well-known words that are hallowed by long tradition, such as "reasonable".

What is "reasonable"?

That depends upon the circumstances and on the common sense of all concerned.

Almost anything one likes.

That may be so in the case of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), but the important thing is that the concept of what is reasonable is at the root of so much of our common law. It is not right to try to identify every conceivable circumstance in which the law might apply and lay it down in the rules. We set out various criteria and then leave it to the common sense of judges and magistrates. We have done this in our criminal and civil law for many years, as the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) will confirm. It is important that the power should not be confirmed at whim or capriciously, but that there should be power for a court, for example, to review whether there could be grounds for suspicion that there is something wrong. This is not a matter for anxiety. Those are the conditions that must be fulfilled.

Taking up what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said, will the Minister help me with a difficulty on subsection (2), which says that a person

"entitled to grant entry to the premises or access to the evidence … has unreasonably refused such entry or access to a constable".

All these cases turn on that fact. One could well envisage a case where someone said, "In no circumstances will I talk to any police officer. I do not mind what you say or what you do, I shall not even talk to you or listen to you when you say that you are asking me voluntarily to help the police in particular circumstances." In those circumstances it would be proper for a police officer to apply to a magistrate and say, "This is the reason I want it. This is the serious offence that has happened. This is the material. I identify it. I believe it to be there on reasonable grounds. It will be of substantial value to the investigation. I tried to persuade the holder to let me see it, but he said that he never talks to police officers and will not do so in this instance." In those circumstances, I should be very surprised and disappointed if a magistrate did not say, "Very well, I think that that is unreasonable."

rose—

I was finishing my speech, and I am conscious of having taken a long time. Very well, I shall give way.

The Minister has said nothing about the amendments to his new clause. It might save time later if he did so.