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

Full details of the nuclear balance are given in chapter 4 of the 1983 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which I published last week. This makes clear the continuing build-up in Soviet nuclear forces. Since last year the imbalance between the Soviet Union and NATO of the longer-range missiles and aircraft in this category has increased from 4:1 to 5:1.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Will he go further and confirm that in recent years the Soviet Union, with the deployment of the SS20s, has more than 700 warheads targeted on western Europe at a time when NATO countries have withdrawn no fewer than 1,000 nuclea warheads? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that cruise need not be deployed if the Soviets agree to dismantle the SS20s? In the light of that build-up, is it unreasonable to say to the Soviet Union that if it is serious about disarmament negotiations it should agree to withdraw its SS20s?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to confirm that since the 1979 NATO twin-track decision the number of SS20s has trebled. About two thirds of those missiles are now targeted on western Europe. NATO's purpose is to persuade the Soviet Union to remove those missiles. The Soviet Union is aware that if it will not do so we shall need to carry out the other side of the twin-track decision, which is the deployment of the cruise missile system.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the modernisation of NATO's intermediate nuclear forces provides an opportunity for the rationalisation of the NATO nuclear arsenal in Europe, and particularly for a reduction in short-range and battlefield systems? When these matters are considered by the high level group later this year, will the Government press for major reductions in the tactical nuclear arsenal in Europe?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that NATO withdrew 1,000 nuclear warheads last year. We are now carrying out a fundamental review and will make a judgment on that matter as soon as the result of the review is available. We have also made it clear that every new weapon that is deployed will be countered by an equivalent withdrawal in numerical terms.

Will my right hon. Friend take fully into account the fact disclosed by SACEUR. General Bernard Rogers, on 7 June at the assembly of the Western European Union, that all the SS20s deployed in eastern Europe have spare rounds on site, and that therefore the number of warheads targeted against western Europe is double what is often supposed, as was confirmed by the general when questioned?

My hon. Friend touches on one of the great problems associated with the verifiability of nuclear weapons. We have made it clear that we are anxious to talk only about the number of warheads deployed and welcome the fact that in recent statements Mr. Andropov has indicated that he is now prepared to talk about warheads.

The Secretary of State says that we are prepared to talk about nuclear warheads. As the only member of the Warsaw Pact which possesses nuclear weapons is Russia, whereas on the NATO side they are possessed by the United States, Great Britain and, even though excluded under chapter 4, France, why will the Secretary of State and the Government not agree that British nuclear weapons — Polaris and, if it comes, Trident—should be put into the negotiating count when the time comes?

The right hon. Gentleman will notice that in the White Paper I have included the British Polaris system in the balance between the Soviet forces and the NATO alliance. The important point is that we have included it under the heading of strategic systems, not under intermediate range systems, to which the Geneva talks are directed.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many times each year it is envisaged that cruise missile trailers will leave Greerham Common for training exercises.

I cannot add to what is said in paragraph 209 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" published last week.

Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of British people, whether they are unilateralists or multilateralists, do not want cruise missiles to be based in Britain, and are particularly concerned that the Secretary of State wants to spend more time arguing between multilateralism and unilateralism rather than setting out specific proposals to ensure that Britain does not need cruise later in the year?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have recently had a general election at which a decisive mandate was given to the party that stood on a clear multilateralist platform.

Has my hon. Friend noted the recent antics of Monsignor Bruce Kent in relation to the cruise missile in trying to suggest that members of the armed services would be within their rights to disobey orders if it meant a confrontation? Will my hon. Friend take careful note of that and make sure that appropriate action is taken as and when necessary?

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will have seen, as I have, the extremely robust article on that subject in the leader column in one of today's papers.

Given the Secretary of State's comments on cruise missiles and the Government's commitment to multilateral disarmament, will the Minister consider the logic of his argument and state whether the only nuclear threat to Britain will come from the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries? If so, and if the Government's multilateralist policy is successful, does he ever envisage a position in which Britain will be free from nuclear weapons?

It is a commonplace, which I should have thought everybody understood, that the only nuclear threat to Britain is from the USSR.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what matters he discussed with General Matthei and other representatives of the Chilean Government during their recent visit to London.

Neither General Matthei nor other Chilean representatives visited my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. General Matthei called on me briefly. We discussed defence equipment matters and human rights.

Will the Minister confirm that his discussions with General Matthei, however brief, included the possible future sales of nuclear arms and weapon systems to Chile?

They did not.

In that case, what arms were discussed?

None.

Would it not be the ultimate irony and unspeakably shameful if an honoured ship such as HMS Hermes, which was deployed so effectively a year ago in the cause of democracy and self-determination, were disposed of to a regime such as the Chilean Government? Will the Minister deny that the Government ever contemplated such a step?

HMS Hermes will not complete her service and pay-off until 1985. At the moment, no disposal of HMS Hermes is contemplated.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he expects the delivery of the cruise missiles to begin.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the timetable for the installation of cruise missiles.

As my hon. Friend the former Minister of State for the Armed Forces informed the House on 3 May, preparations are proceeding to enable deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom to begin by the end of the year unless an agreement involving the total elimination of all longer-range land-based intermediate range nuclear force missiles can be reached in the arms control negotiations in Geneva. I am not prepared to discuss the details of these preparations.

Is it not a fact that an election is no good reason for an elected dictatorship and that opinion polls have revealed that a majority of the British people are against cruise and Trident missiles? Is it not also a fact that we in Britain have almost a third of those horrific missiles, yet the House has no means of knowing whether the Prime Minister's finger shares the trigger with the President of the United States, although most believe that the one finger on the trigger is that of the United States' President?

That matter has been fully ventilated in the House and the House is fully aware of the joint decision-making arrangements with the President of the United States. I do not know of any context in which an elected dictatorship could apply in Britain, unless it were the result of policies to which the hon. Gentleman gives his name.

In view of the implied insult to the integrity of the Queen's Own Highlanders following their measures at Greenham Common to defend the cruise base against the activities of the women there, which was referred to a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be serious were it not for the fact that it came from a discredited cleric? Will my right hon. Friend support me in a recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, in view of the notable contribution by the CND to the Conservative party's election victory, a knighthood or some other signal honour should be conferred upon Monsignor Bruce Kent?

I should support such a recommendation only on the basis that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown remarkable skill in rejecting other frivolous suggestions.

Order. I appeal for shorter supplementary questions, please.

If the deployment of cruise missiles goes ahead and the INF talks continue after that. what proposals for verification will the Government put forward which the Soviet Union will think are sensible and reasonable?

That implies that I know what the Soviet Union will accept. The verification issue is at the centre of the debate and we have never yet been able to persuade the Soviet Union to accept on-site inspection, which is critical if there is to be mutual confidence.

Is it worth trying to explain to the Opposition that there is the problem of the unelected dictatorship of the Soviet Union? People who look for weapons control and arms reduction should spend as much time being concerned about SS20s as they do about nuclear weapons on this side.

My hon. Friend comes to the heart of the matter. He can rely on the good sense of the British people, who rejected the advice of Labour Members on the matter.

Is it not unlikely that the Soviet Union will negotiate seriously at either the INF talks or the mutual and balanced force reduction talks until the cruise missiles are deployed, after which we may expect serious negotiations?

I respect my hon. Friend's views, but I hope that that will not prove to be the case. It would be much more desirable if the Soviet Union were now to take seriously the decisions that were announced in 1979 to proceed four years later with the deployment of those weapon systems if we could not pursue meaningful negotiations in the meantime. I hope that the Soviet Union will realise that we mean what we say.

1 question the Secretary of State's rather bizarre arithmetic on the mandate for and against cruise at the election, but does he accept that the basis for discussions on cruise is that it represents a dangerous escalation of the nuclear balance with an unverifiable weapon which may be placed here in the future?

The deployment of the cruise missile system is to counter the deployment of the Soviet SS20s, and as such it was the logical extension of the plans upon which the previous Labour Government were working.

Why does the Secretary of State stick to an arbitrary timetable for the deployment of cruise missiles? If he and his Government are serious about disarmament talks, why not delay the deployment of cruise missiles to give time for agreement to be reached at Geneva?

Conservative Members think that four years is adequate if the Soviet Union has any intention of negotiating.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the proposal to locate the Trident nuclear weapon in Scotland.

The representations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received on Trident cover a wide range of matters. No separate record is maintained of letters dealing specifically with the question of the location of the base for the future Trident submarine force.

How can the Government argue that they have a mandate for foisting this deadly weapon on the people of Scotland when this militant Tory Government were rejected by over 70 per cent. of the Scottish people at the general election? Bearing in mind that about half of the Scottish element of the recent proposed cuts in public expenditure are to be borne by the National Health Service, why are the Government so hell-bent on spending over £10,000 million of public money on a weapon of death instead of spending more to protect life in areas such as the National Health Service?

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he speaks in the Chamber not as a member of a Scottish assembly but as a member of a United Kingdom Parliament. I note that a gallup poll carried out for the BBC in May showed that the proportion of those in Britain against unilaterally getting rid of nuclear weapons was nearly 80 per cent.

Since the Trident 2D5 weapon system is designed to destroy Soviet missiles in their silos, is it not likely that the Soviet Union will regard it as a first-strike weapon even though it may not be the Government's intention to use it in that way?

It is essential to maintain the British capability and to have an independent strategic deterrent. It is thus necessary to modernise the Polaris force, which will have become obsolescent by the early 1990s.

Is not modernisation a polite way of talking about escalation? Trident represents a marked escalation of the arms race. Does the Minister accept that the majority of people in Britain do not want Trident? The Government have already cut their defence expenditure by £250 million and are likely to do so again in the autumn. We shall end up with a very expensive totem pole which we shall never be able to use, while at the same time our conventional forces are run down and are unable to defend the country properly.

It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should consider that the Trident procurement programme involves escalation. That was certainly not the view taken by any of the previous Labour Governments, who were happy to support the procurement of Polaris. At that time they clearly did not regard it as escalation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has just made a Freudian slip? The whole point is that we should never have to use such weapons. Our increased capability should form the foundation to enable us to get negotiations going on both sides of the Iron Curtain, thus ensuring that nuclear weapons are never used. That is the whole purpose of it all.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and he is entirely right. We are fortunate that Europe has had one of its longest periods of peace. The policy of deterrence is an integral part of that and it is the Government's firm intention to maintain it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will review the arrangements by which firms tender for contracts with the Ministry of Defence for the first time.

Before a firm is invited to tender for the first time the Ministry normally satisfies itself as to the firm's capabilities.

Will my hon. Friend accept that that is a rather disappointing reply? Many firms tendering for the first time for Ministry of Defence work find it difficult to find their way round the labyrinthine complexities of the Ministry of Defence. Will my hon. Friend consider holding a review so that first-time buyers—often small firms — will find it much easier to make the right contacts in the Ministry?

I recognise my hon. Friend's anxiety. We are making arrangements to make firms —particularly small companies—more aware of the points of contact in the Ministry, so that we can get round such problems.

Does the Minister accept that there is a close relationship between such tendering policy and keeping technology in this country? Would he care to explain how a company such as Racal can announce that it will obtain a contract for ESM equipment for the type 23 long before the tender document and contract have been concluded by the Ministry of Defence?

Individual companies must answer for themselves, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that such competitions are conducted with strict impartiality and with full regard to the importance of technology for our national purposes.

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about small firms, but will he bear in mind the need to steer some contracts to development areas, and particularly special development areas, where there is high unemployment?

There are certain provisions for firms in development areas, but I should not like any hon. Member to think that the Ministry of Defence steered contracts in certain directions in the way that my hon. Friend has, perhaps, suggested.

What about the appalling experience of the contract given to a Swedish firm to build houses for the troops in the Falklands? That firm was run by a group of people in this country who were little more than consultants, and it had a turnover of only £17,000 per annum. Prior to getting the contract, that firm had not filed its accounts for three years. A firm in Britain in the neighbouring constituency of Amber Valley was unable to obtain the contract from the Ministry of Defence. A British firm wanted the job and there were British jobs at stake. but a Swedish firm was able to muscle in. The Minister promised—

Order. It is unfair to ask long supplementary questions, because it prevents other hon. Members from asking questions.

It is a long issue.

The point made by the hon. Gentleman goes far wider than the original question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the agile combat aircraft and the plans for its development.

The agile combat aircraft is a private venture and plans for its development are a matter for the firms concerned. In parallel we are pressing on with the experimental aircraft programme jointly with industry.

Given that about 40,000 jobs in Britain may eventually depend upon that project, what progress has been made in laying the foundations for a European collaborative programme?

Last week I was in Bonn and Munich having discussions and consultations on precisely this issue. We must be cautiously optimistic at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the importance of the project to British Aerospace and the Royal Air Force cannot be underrated? The French and Germans, and now even some other European and Western contractors, are considering some sort of cooperative project. Will my hon. Friend accept that the work force at British Aerospace recognises the enormous amount of work that he has personally put into the project and hopes that he will continue to do just as much?

On the last point, I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets his opposite number in France and then attends the trilateral meeting—which we hope will take place in the autumn—that will be one of the items on the agenda.

Although the point has already been covered, I should like to stress the importance of this issue to Lancaster, which I represent. Will the Minister bear in mind the high unemployment rate there when making his decision?

That factor will certainly be taken into account.

Will the Minister reach a decision on that issue quickly, given the necessity to maintain jobs in our aerospace industry and, indeed, to maintain a British Aerospace industry in Britain? Will he reach a decision soon?

I am fully aware of the problems facing British Aerospace, particularly following the conclusion of the Tornado programme towards the end of the decade. However, the hon. Lady must be aware that if we are to move ahead on a collaborative basis it cannot be done overnight. As I have said, we are actively pursuing the options and will come to a decision as soon as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has made to the latest Soviet proposals regarding deployment of INF missiles in Europe.

In the INF negotiations in Geneva the United States, with the full support of its allies, has made it clear that the latest Soviet proposals outlined by Mr. Andropov on 3 May are unacceptable to the alliance, because they are counter to the fair and equitable principles which NATO has consistently followed. I regret that little progress has been made in the negotiations because of Soviet intransigence. The zero option remains the alliance objective, but if that is too radical for the Soviet Union we are prepared to agree a genuine balance of missile warhead numbers at as low a level as the Soviet Union will accept.

Why are the Government so immobile and inflexible about the INF talks, given that the Soviets have now offered parity of warheads, and not just missiles at lower levels, that the Pershing 2 and cruise missiles are clearly counterforce weapons with first-strike nuclear capability—which the Soviet Union's SS20s clearly are not — and that SACEUR already has 400 MIRV warheads, which even if technically SALT counted are specifically alloted to the European theatre? Does that not show that the Government are not really serious about disarmament proposals?

What it does show is that if that is the Opposition's attitude they will be in as much trouble at the next election as they were at the last.

Can my right hon. Friend explain the mystery of why so many Opposition Members are concerned about the introduction of certain weapons here and apparently unconcerned about the weapons already trained upon us and upon Mr. Livingstone's nuclear-free London?

I can help my hon. Friend. The explanation is simple—they are in Opposition and not in Government.

Will the Secretary of State now come to the point which he ignored earlier? He talked about airborne and land-based missiles. Will he state here and now that the Government are prepared to negotiate with the Soviet Union our nuclear weapons in exchange for theirs? Yes or no?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman realises that this is the most important set of negotiations being conducted anywhere in the work . To think that it can be conducted on a yes or no basis defies the experience of any Government in the world.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Danish Parliament, most people in Holland and possibly even the West Germans— [Interruption.] Government Members hate to hear things being said to them, particularly the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). Is the Secretary of State aware that apparently the German Chancellor is also saying that the British and French nuclear weapons, whether or not we call them strategic, should be brought intc the discussions? Is he prepared to do that—yes or no?

I thought I had made it clear that if in the class of weapons systems to which Polaris belongs there was a significant and substantial breakthrough in deployment between the Soviet Union and the United States this country would not stand aside from that decision. There is no sign at present that such a major breakthrough will take place.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Is he prepared to include this matter in the negotiations on the INF—yes or no?

The answer to that is absolutely clear. It is no. They are not intermediate range systems and the Government White Paper makes that clear. All that the right hon. Gentleman is doing is playing into the hands of the Soviet Union, which is trying to mislead Western public opinion into believing that they are.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received recently from British Aerospace about the servicing and refitting of Nimrod aircraft.

I wrote to my hon. Friend on 30 March 1983. The position has not changed since then.

When will the RAF make up its mind about what constitutes a service and what constitutes a refit? Is my hon. Friend aware that the company is anxious to sign the contract but that the RAF is dragging its heels?

I shall examine the matter again. My understanding is that the RAF is not dragging its feet. There is a need to strike the right balance between the level of servicing by the RAF and the level of servicing by the company. In view of what has been said I shall re-examine the matter.

Is the Minister aware of the aerospace industry's desperate plight and that only recently 3,500 workers were declared redundant? Does the Minister recall that during the Falklands crisis the industry came to the nation's aid? What assistance will the Minister give?

I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman says. He will recall coming to see me a few months ago to make the same representations. Whether the Nimrod production line at Manchester is opened again is primarily for the company to decide. We are assisting the company to achieve export sales in every way possible because we think that that is the best way forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the strength of the Territorial Army in each of the last three years.

On 31 March in each year the strength of the Territorial Army was 69,524 in 1981; 72,062 in 1982; and 72,805 in 1983.

In view of the great benefits of the Territorial Army in increasing the available readiness of our armed forces and it also being a training ground for our young people which will set them up for life, will ray hon. Friend consider an even further extension of the Territorial Army?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him about the benefits of service in the Territorial Army. He will be aware that the Government are in the process of organising a significant expansion of the Territorial Army. We are well on course to achieving our target of a further increase up to 86,000 by 1990.

Will there be any cuts in the TA or in any other area of the Army's budget arising from the public expenditure statement last week?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will obviously have to consider the implications of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he has not yet decided how the savings required from the MOD will be made across the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships are currently deployed in the south Atlantic; and if he will make a statement.

Naval forces currently in the south Atlantic include destroyers, frigates, submarines and afloat support, together with a survey vessel and naval helicopters. I cannot give precise numbers, for reasons of operational security. Force levels are kept under constant review.

Does my hon. Friend think that sufficient forces are on station there, not only in relation to the Falkland Islands, but to protecting the sea routes around the Cape? Does not my hon. Friend think that it is wise and prudent to consult friendly pro-Western Governments bordering the Atlantic to see what further protection of the sea links can be made available.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the forces in the south Atlantic are there to carry out our defensive obligations to the Falkland Islands. We are satisfied with the level of disposition there at present.

Does the Minister recall the statement in the defence Estimates that the present front-line force of destroyers and frigates, at 59, is expected to decline to 50 later in the decade? How does the Minister reconcile that decline with the continuing Falklands requirement, the requirement for Belize and Gibraltar guardships, the requirements for operational training for ships as well as assigned NATO roles? Can the Minister wonder that some people outside the House query the Government's defence priority?

We have made a number of significant adjustments to the deployment of destroyers and frigates following events in the south Atlantic. All the four battle losses have been replaced with type 22 vessels. We are retaining the three carriers. We are running on up to four ships that would have been on standby by 1985 and we are retaining in service for another year the three Tribal class frigates that were on the disposal list. That is a significant response to events in the south Atlantic.

Will the Government discuss the detailed story by the political editor of The Mail on Sunday, Peter Simmonds, describing how Argentina was about to get from Italy and Switzerland Otomat missile systems which have a range of 125 miles? What representations are the Government making to the Governments of France, Italy and Switzerland about the acquisition of those weapons?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have already made clear to our allies our views on arms sales to Argentina.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the current arrangements for discontinuing work at the dockyard at Gibraltar by the Royal Navy.

Discussions are continuing with the Gibraltar Government about the implementation of our decision to close the Gibraltar naval dockyard. We hope that a commercial undertaking will take over the facilities and offer employment to many of those working in the naval dockyard when it closes. I visited the Rock last week and outlined the substantial support Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make available to bring about these changes.

What will be the net expenditure saving from the closure? How does it compare with the importance of Gibraltar as a staging post for the Royal Navy on its way to the Falklands— leaving aside the dreadful effect of the closure on the local economy?

The figure that has been given for the saving is £.13 million. My hon. Friend may be confusing the naval dockyard with the naval base, which will continue to operate.

As it was the general hope that the new Spanish Government would implement the Lisbon agreement and open the frontier properly, therefore providing an opportunity for tourism to expand, would it not be well to delay closing the dockyard or to find some alternative means of helping the Gibraltar economy until it is clear that the Lisbon agreement will be fulfilled in its entirety?

I fully appreciate my right hon. Friend's point. Unfortunately, it is difficult to estimate the time scale of what might be involved on the future of the border. There are no obstacles on our side to its opening. The present position is that restrictions on the border are acting to the disadvantage of Gibraltar. That is one reason why we thought that it would be helpful to go ahead with the development of a commercial dockyard to assist the Gibraltar economy while the border remains closed.

Is a £13 million saving really worth while compared with the benefits of maintaining an adequate dockyard facility for the Royal Navy? Did not that dockyard show its worth in the recent Falklands campaign? Will the Minister comment on the rumour circulating last week that one of the terms of aid and assistance to the dockyard workers was that they had to agree to a no-strike clause in any contract that the dockyard might be given?

I cannot comment further about the discussions on the arrangements for the future of the dockyard. The decision to close the dockyard was taken because we no longer have a need for it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make public his decision on an anti-radar missile to be purchased for the Royal Air Force.

I expect to make a decision in the near future.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today, or in the near future, to remind his Cabinet colleagues of the importance of an early decision on the missile? It should be the ALARM missile, for a number of reasons, including the fact that it is half the weight, half the cost, will not require the transfer of technology, is British and is best.

I cannot overpraise the zealousness of my hon. Friend in advancing a cause so close to his constituency. I assure him that my Cabinet colleagues will be fully apprised of all the arguments about the weapon system.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for the defence of the British dependent territories against external attack.

Yes, Sir.

As many British islands around the world have no local garrisons and are in strategically exposed positions, is my hon. Friend satisfied that we can reach them quickly, in adequate force in time of emergency?

I assure my hon. Friend that we regularly consider our defence and security obligations towards our dependent territories in relation to the threat as assessed. That process takes place continually.

Will the defence of British dependent territories be influenced by the public expenditure cuts announced last week?

We have already made it clear that a small reduction must he made in the totality of the defence budget this year. Future years will be dealt with in the public expenditure cycle in the usual way.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the royal ordnance factories.

It remains the Government's firm intention to introduce private capital into the operation of the royal ordnance factories, as Sir John Nott explained to the House on 8 May 1982. We hope to introduce legislation after Parliament reassembles in the autumn which will allow the ROFs to operate in a more commercial environment according to the provisions of the Companies Acts, rather than under the Trading Funds Act 1973 as at present.

Did my hon. Friend see the scurrilous and wholly misleading pamphlets issued by the unions at the ROFs during the election campaign? Will he condemn them out of hand? Will he go further and say publicly to the work force that there is no doubt that the moves announced today, and previously by Sir John Nott, will be in their interests because they will open up new markets for them?

I will gladly say from the Dispatch Box what my hon. Friend has requested. The employment of my hon. Friend's constituents will be better safeguarded on the new basis than it has been hitherto.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with President Burnham of Guyana. 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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, as a result of cuts in National Health Service spending, the South London hospital for women, which is the only hospital in this country that provides a full range of acute services by women for women, is under threat of closure? Does not the right hon. Lady owe it to the women of this country to keep that hospital open? Will she arrange for central funding to enable it to survive?

As I told the House when I last answered questions, I expect that expenditure on the National Health Service as a whole will be no lower than that announced in the public expenditure White Paper. Indeed, it will he higher in real terms in 1983–84 than in 1982–83. With regard to any particular hospital, including the South London — the question of its closure was raised long before the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week—the usual procedures are being followed and ultimately this matter will come to the Secretary of State.

In view of the Government's consistent support for the Gleneagles agreement, and their clear obligation under that agreement to discourage sporting links with South Africa, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to make it clear that she is opposed to an MCC tour of South Africa?

Yes. Such a tour would be contrary to Gleneagles. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport has already written to the MCC' to let it know the Government's views.

Does the Prime Minister accept that there is unfair discrimination against the long-term unemployed, who form the only group in our society eligible for supplementary benefit yet not eligible for the long-term rate? If the right hon. Lady agrees that that is unfair, will she reconsider the matter and end that discrimination?

No. The long term rate is usually available only to those who are going into permanent retirement. The turnround in unemployment over the year is considerable—about 350,000 leave the register each month. We do not think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be appropriate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if the reasons why local authorities apparently need to borrow so much money were made known earlier so that markets could know where they stand? When will the Government require local authorities to sell some part of the 100,000 acres of surplus development land that they own so that more houses can be built and the construction industry put to work?

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, especially about the disposal of land that has been in the hands of local authorities for a long time. They also have access to capital by virtue of selling council houses. My hon. Friend is right. We do not have the means of controlling local authority borrowing. The extent to which they are borrowing is one of the causes of over expenditure at the moment.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will seek to negotiate with President Reagan an agreement on joint control of United States nuclear weapons on British soil.

I have already reviewed with President Reagan the existing understandings between the United Kingdom and the United States governing the use by the United States of nuclear weapons and bases in this country. I described the effect of these understandings in answer to a question on 12 May and again on 30 June.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the great concern inside and outside the House about the lack of transparent agreement on these matters? If, in fact, there can be no guarantee of dual control of these weapons, does she agree that the so-called nuclear defence strategy of the Government will be seen to be neither independent of, nor co-dependent with, the United States, but utterly dependent on President Reagan?

If the hon. Gentleman has indeed read the reply that I gave again on 30 June, he will know that joint decision means exactly what it says. It would require the decision of both President Reagan—or the then President of the United States—and the current Prime Minister before any such weapon could be fired. President Reagan has already made that perfectly clear and has said in the United States that it is tantamount to a veto.

Gullible lady.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while most people are quite satisfied with the arrangements for the control of nuclear weapons here, what does concern them, and concerned them at the last general election, is the utter lack of concern shown by Opposition Members to the huge build-up of Soviet arms facing this country and threatening our way of life?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is NATO that has made extensive proposals in Geneva and, for many years, in Vienna, for disarmament.

Do logistic difficulties mean that it might not be possible to deploy Pershing 2 in Germany and cruise missiles in Italy at the end of this year, should it be necessary? Does this not underline the importance of having RAF personnel involved in the dual key mechanism if Britain alone of the NATO allies has to deploy cruise missiles at the end of the year?

I am not aware of any such logistic difficulties, particularly with regard to Germany. It is Germany's intention to deploy at the end of the year in accordance with our agreements.

Was not a striking feature of the election campaign the complete public satisfaction and calm on the issue of joint decision-making and supervision? It was not an election issue, despite Left-wing attempts to build it up as such. Does my right hon. Friend agree that public acceptance of an obviously sensitive arrangement that has lasted for many years will continue in the future?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The last election showed two things very clearly: first, that the British people believe that Britain's defences should remain strong and part of NATO and, secondly, that disarmament should be on a multilateral, balanced and verifiable basis.

asked the Prime Minister if she will consider reviewing the arrangements for the administration of matters affecting Government Departments in Scotland.

I am satisfied with the present arrangements and have no plans to review them.

Does the Prime Minister recall that in her Scottish manifesto she promised to consider further changes to improve the government of Scotland? When does she plan to bring forward those changes, or is this another promise that will be reneged on, like her promise to protect the Health Service?

The hon. Gentleman asked about

"arrangements for the administration of matters affecting Government Departments in Scotland."

The right hon. Lady said that she would put them forward.

As the Prime Minister was decisively rejected at the general election by more than 70 per cent. of Scottish voters, will she admit that she received no mandate from the people of Scotland, the majority of whom voted for candidates who stood on manifestos containing commitments to set up a Scottish assembly? If the Prime Minister pays any more than lip-service to democracy, will she now take steps to deliver to the people of Scotland what they voted for?

On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's criteria, four out of the last five Labour Governments had no mandate to govern England.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, outside the immediate vicinity of Glasgow, Conservative candidates received more votes than Labour candidates at the recent election? Is she further aware that Scotland appreciates the fact that she has provided not only a most admirable team of Scottish Office Ministers and Law Officers but, just as important, has ensured the continuation of Scottish influence in the United Kingdom Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have an excellent group of Ministers in the Scottish Office, an excellent group of Scottish Members elsewhere in the present Government and a marvellous group of Scottish Members in the House.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that the arrangements that she finds acceptable for the administration of Scottish affairs by a Government who have no mandate from Scotland is not acceptable to the Scottish people? Why is she willing to declare that the rights of the Falkland Islanders are paramount but that the rights of Scots who have voted for self-government are not?

With all due respect, the nationalist party did not do very well in Scotland at the general election.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 July.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that the losses of the National Coal Board are in excess of its reserves, which means that, by most normal standards, that industry is bankrupt? Is it not unacceptable that this great national asset should be a continuing liability to the taxpayer? Is it not necessary that the position should be remedied and that the Coal Board should be brought back to viability as a matter of urgency?

Yes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced, the National Coal Board is certainly insolvent although not, as I understand it, technically bankrupt. It is technically insolvent. Government support for the industry is huge. The total external finance for this year is set at £1,201 million and the grants for this year alone amount to £640 million. My right hon. Friend made an announcement that covered this year. It is a protected industry. It is an example of what happens to a protected industry and it is absolutely vital that it should return to viability. That would be very good news for the rest of British industry. When the price of coal is down because it is equated to productive pits, the price of electricity could come down and therefore we would start to save jobs and the rest of British industry would pay lower energy costs.

The right hon. Lady talks of viability in the coal industry. Will she confirm that many Governments in western Europe subsidise their coal industries a good deal more than we do in this country and that many of them regard it as a good investment? Will she clear up the confusion caused by her statement last week to the effect that the cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were somehow not cuts? Will she confirm that £140 million was taken off the hospital and community health budget; that £30 million was taken off the education budget; that £57 million was taken from nationalised industries' finance; that £40 million was taken from the employment services; £20 million from foreign aid; £16 million from transport and £230 million from defence? Are those cuts or are they not?

Where Government Departments, businesses or even ordinary households are overspending on their budgets, the budget has to be brought back within its total. The total budget published in February 1983 for this year is £119·6 billion. That is our target. We have reduced overspending to come down to that target.

If those are not real cuts—I gather that that is what the right hon. Lady is trying to tell us—will she tell the Secretary of State for Social Services and the House how the cuts in the National Health Service can be made without cutting people's jobs? Is it not the case that the proposed round of cuts—or whatever she calls them —may involve the loss of about 20,000 jobs? How will she stop that?

I expect expenditure on the National Health Service as a whole to be no lower than that outlined in the public expenditure White Paper. It will be higher in real terms in 1983–84 than it was in 1982–83. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman judges the success of a service by the amount spent on it. If that is so, this Government and the last Government have done a great deal better than Labour Governments.

Will the right hon. Lady now say whether any jobs in the NHS will be lost as a result of the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago; and was that fact known before the general election?

As I have indicated, there is already an increased number, even in the administrative and clerical grades — [Hoist. MEMBERS: "Answer."]— which figures we were pledged to reduce under the manifesto before last. We attempted to reduce those numbers by an Act of Parliament, with the aim of taking out a whole administrative layer from the Health Service, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services—

Come off it.

Opposition Members may have short memories, but they will recall that my right hon. Friend announced in February, about four months before the election, that he had appointed Mr. Roy Griffiths to look into management in the NHS and had taken powers to control manpower targets. All that was done before the last election.