asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the existing arrangements for military co-operation with the United States Government in the area of Central America.

The only such arrangements on land concern co-operation over training assistance to the Belize Defence Force. We conduct joint naval exercises with the United States navy in the area from time to time.

Will the Minister make it clear that, in the event of any further American intervention in Nicaragua, there will be no support for it from any of the British armed forces?

The Prime Minister has made it clear that we would not wish to give any support in that area.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are no plans to withdraw the British garrison from Belize, as it is valuable for the area's security and much appreciated by our American friends?

As my hon. Friend is aware, there is not an indefinite commitment to retain the garrison in Belize, but I assure him that no date has been fixed for its withdrawal.

Will the Minister confirm that there can be no question of any military co-operation with the United States if it should again engage in intervention in and invasion of a sovereign independent country?

That is a hypothetical question, but I assure the House that our arrangements with the United States are limited to those contained in my original answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the light of the negotiations on theatre or nuclear weapons, he will now make a statement on the installation of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects that cruise missiles will be deployed at Greenham common.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when it is now expected cruise missiles will be operational in the United Kingdom.

I have nothing further to add to what I told the House yesterday, except that one American aircraft carrying equipment landed this morning.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's debate showed clearly the Government's determination to negotiate away the ever-growing threat posed by the SS20s, that the installation of cruise missiles in this country in response to that threat does not mean an end to those negotiations, which, if successful, could result in a reduction in cruise missiles, and that this policy received the overwhelming endorsement of the House?

I am sure that the world will have noticed the size of the Government's majority last night. My hon. Friend is correct. In addition to our determination to stick to our deployment date at the end of this year, we are determined to keep all avenues open for the continuation of the negotiations.

Even if the Secretary of State is correct when he says that the Americans are totally to be trusted, what have we to lose by demanding dual key control? Is it that the right hon. Gentleman dare not make that request to the Americans for fear of provoking such a humiliating refusal as to make it clear to the British people who is really in charge?

Yesterday, we went into the issue carefully. I considered the dual key conrol arguments that had appealed to the Labour Government, and I found them satisfactory.

Does the Secretary of State accept that yesterday he could not produce a shred of moral or ethical argument in favour of the deployment of cruise? There is also a major practical problem in its deployment, in that whenever the authorities want to test the system's viability there will be demonstrations when the cruise carriers leave the base. If there were a nuclear alert, under any circumstances, large numbers of people in this country would prefer to be killed trying to prevent that deployment than face the prospect of the launching of cruise missiles.

There was a demonstration outside the House last night in support of the type of argument that the hon. Gentleman parades. The demonstrators do not add up to a tiny proportion of the number of people who supported my right hon. and hon. Friends through the ballot box to give us the majority to proceed with these policies. The hon. Gentleman talks of morality. I should have thought that the defence of the freedom of the free world was one of any Government's most important moral obligations.

As other countries study debates such as the one we had last night, it is important that both sides of the House should spell out their positions. Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to encourage the Opposition to say, first, where their policies can be distinguished, and are different, from those of CND and, secondly, whether their policies have changed since the general election?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, but I do not want to emarrass the Opposition to that extent.

Yesterday the Secretary of State for Defence accused those who argued for dual key control of lacking trust in the United States and said that that was very expensive. Does he agree that maintaining and updating an independent nuclear deterrent is a greater example of lack of trust and is ruinously expensive?

I do not believe that that is right, because I rather accept the original view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that the existence of a separate independent British nuclear deterrent provides a second base of decision in Europe and therefore confuses the issue in the mind of the Soviet Union.

Is it possible for my right hon. Friend in any way to reconcile yesterday's speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) with the fact that when he was Secretary of State for Defence the country was smothered with American nuclear missiles over which we had no physical control?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the disparity between yesterday's speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and those that he made as Secretary of State for Defence, but I have never looked for consistency from Opposition Members.

Following the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about demonstrations, it was reported recently that if any of the demonstrators — the ladies from Greenham common—arrived near the bunkers where the nuclear warheads were held there was a possibility that they would be shot. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will instruct the people responsible for Greenham common cruise missile base that under no circumstances will shots be fired at the peace protestors?

I shall categorically give no such assurance. It has been the absolute duty of all Governments to defend the nuclear weapons in this country as well as all the military bases of this country's defence forces. To suggest that we should now abandon that policy is ridiculous.

Will my right hon. Friend give a categoric assurance that whatever demonstrations there may be—the great unwashed or washed, Left or Right —the Government will support the country's defences, whether at Greenham common or elsewhere, and that small minorities will not be allowed to destroy our defence credibility?

I am sure that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that the only majority that matters in Britain is that in the House of Commons, which has the right to pursue the policies upon which the Government were elected.

We shall all be anxious about the implication of the Secretary of State's remark that the Government would be prepared to shoot demonstrators if they demonstrate at Greenham common. The right hon. Gentleman said that the whole world would study last night's vote. It will also read his speech, which is rather confused by his statement that if we asked for dual key control the Americans would wish to have dual key control over Polaris and, ultimately, Trident. What evidence does he have for that? Does it mean that the Americans view the British independent nuclear deterrent not as a strategic weapon but as a theatre weapon?

The Americans regard their arrangements with us as categoric. It is Opposition right hon. and hon. Members who seek to suggest that the trust upon which those undertaking are based is defective. The right hon. Gentleman comes new to the Front Bench—

I came here before the right hon. Gentleman did.

Then he ought to know better. Before he suggests that there is something new in my policy of defending Great Britain's nuclear defences and our defence establishments, he should remember that every Labour Government since the war have done precisely the same.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question that I asked? What evidence is there that if we ask the Americans for dual key control over cruise they will wish to have dual key control of our so-called—it is now very much so-called — independent nuclear deterrent? Does it mean that the Americans see it as a theatre weapon and not as a strategic weapon?

Opposition right hon. and hon. Members are arguing the case that the Americans cannot be trusted in these circumstances, in which case I pose a question: if that is the basis of the argument, would the Americans be entitled to reverse the question and ask us?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in closing down the royal naval dockyard facilities in Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the reply of 12 July, Official Report, c. 766, what progress there has been in discussions with the Gibraltar Government about the implementation of the decision to close the Gibraltar naval dockyard.

We have not yet started closing down facilities. In accordance with the spirit of the agreement announced by my predecessor on 27 July, we are continuing to run the dockyard until the end of 1984, unless we and the Government of Gibraltar agree on an earlier date for closure. A phased programme has been prepared for withdrawal from those facilities which will not subsequently be required by the commercial operator, and for the relocation of certain other facilities within the naval base area. In addition, a state of redundancy has been declared in the royal dockyard. Although no compulsory redundancy notices have yet been issued, some employees have volunteered for redundancy.

Is my hon. Friend, whom we welcome warmly to his new position, aware that some of his hon.

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome. I know that he has taken a continuing interest in Gibraltar. I emphasise that the dockyard closure is part of the Government's overall rationalisation policy and that the naval base, the RAF and Army presence will remain. The Government remain committed to supporting Gibraltar's economy and to honouring the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his appointment to his new office and wish him every success. He will be aware that the dockyard closure was agreed by the dockyard workers, but that a few weeks ago two prominent British trade union members—Alec Kitson and Mike Murphy — went there and by their rabble-rousing speeches overturned the decision, which means that the dockyard closure has not been agreed by the workers. Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to visit Gibraltar to sort out the position and ensure that the commercialisation of the dockyard goes ahead fairly quickly?

At times I have felt that my hon. Friend represented Banff and Buchan and Gibraltar, so great a champion has he been of Gibraltar's cause. I understand that only about 25 per cent. of the dockyard work force attended the meeting addressed by Mr. Kitson. I do not regard his reported comments as being particularly helpful or constructive. I note the point made by my hon. Friend about my visiting the Gibraltar dockyard, but as yet I have no plans to do so.

I, too, extend congratulations to the Minister on his new appointment. I remind him of the concern caused by his predecessor's statement on 27 July when hon. Members from both sides of the House asked questions about the impact on jobs, notably on Tyneside, as Royal Fleet Auxiliary work was switched away during the first three years of the new commercial operator's life, and about the content of the new working practices upon which it was believed the commercial operator would insist — a cut in numbers and wages and a no-strike clause. Can the hon. Gentleman give a greater assurance to the House on both those matters than his predecessor did?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. Naval work in the form of Royal Fleet Auxiliary refits will be allocated during the first three years of the commercial yard. During that period the volume of RFA work going to Gibraltar will be less than it would have been had we decided to keep the naval dockyard open. Therefore, United Kingdom yards will be better off, not worse off. Work going to Gibraltar will represent about 12 per cent. of total RFA refitting work during the years in question. The method of operation of the dockyard will be up to the new commercial operator. We shall not stipulate that a no-strike clause should be in operation.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the number of Russian SS20 missiles presently targeted on western Europe, and the increase in Russian intermediate nuclear force weapons in recent years.

There are estimated to be 243 SS20s targeted on western Europe. The total number of intermediate nuclear force systems in the USSR facing Europe is about 4,000. Although the number of weapons systems has remained fairly constant for the past few years, the figure for actual warheads has shown a marked increase as older single warhead missiles are replaced by the SS20 with three warheads. In particular, the SS20s targeted on the West have increased from 80 in 1979 to 243 today.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who believe that the Soviet Union has been genuinely interested in multilateral nuclear disarmament during the past four years should bear in mind the inescapable fact that since NATO took the twin-track decision at the end of 1979 the number of SS20 missiles targeted on western Europe has trebled?

That is so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing what I said. We have tried for four years to bring the Soviet Union to a negotiating position that we can accept. We shall continue to take seriously any initiative or response that it makes.

Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) yesterday on the targeting of Polaris missiles? Are we to understand that they are targeted according to SACEUR and that after the missiles are fired by us the boats will be at SACEUR's behest, not the missiles?

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question is about SS20s.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of any withdrawal by the Soviet Union of nuclear warheads or missiles comparable with that which the United States has carried out in the past year or two?

My hon. Friend will be aware that if the deployment of cruise and Pershing II systems is carried through to its full we shall have reduced by about 2,400 the number of warheads in NATO Europe. That is the lowest level that will have been achieved in 20 years. There has been some reduction of some of the older Soviet systems, but nothing can measure up to what the NATO powers have undertaken.

As the Secretary of State mentioned warheads in Europe a moment ago, as there is a rough equality in warheads between the Soviet Union and the NATO powers in Europe, and as for 23 years Western sea-based nuclear missiles were considered quite sufficient to deal with Russian land-based missiles, why is the change taking place?

For all the reasons that were apparent to the Labour Government during the discussions that took place in NATO before they lost office.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the question and forget his obsession with the Labour Government, because he always gets it wrong anyway? Will he tell us what is in his mind, if anything?

What is in my mind is precisely what was in the mind of the Labour Government. The arguments deployed, perhaps most conspicuously by Helmut Schmidt, in the 1970s influenced the NATO Alliance and led along the track that is now well established.

Is it not a fact that Helmut Schmidt nowhere mentioned cruise missiles?

I suggested that Helmut Schmidt pointed to the dangers of decoupling because there was no land-based American system. The cruise missile system filled that gap.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many independent targetable Trident warheads will be operational at any one time after the deployment of Trident.

It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on the number of missiles and warheads carried at any given time by our nuclear deterrent force submarines. The Government's policy for the replacement of the Polaris force is set out in Open Government Documents 80/23 and 82/1.

Will the Minister confirm that the number of missiles is in excess of the present Polaris capability? If Polaris is considered a sufficient deterrent, why will Trident make the British people any safer, given that "deterrent" is a qualitative word, not a quantitative one, and there cannot be more deterrent than is sufficient to deter?

No final decision has been taken on the number of Trident warheads. With regard to the decision on the updating of the present Polaris system, it is well understood that by the early 1990s it will be essential to move to a new system if we are to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of the British deterrent.

Will my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give thought to the significance of independence in nuclear weapons when we are seeking to repair and renew the strength of NATO and the Western Alliance?

I assure my hon. Friend, as he is well aware, that our independent deterrent is assigned to NATO. I should make it equally clear that, ultimately, it is under United Kingdom operational control.

Will the Minister confirm that if the current modernisation plans for the British and French independent nuclear deterrents are carried through to their full potential the number of warheads deployed will rise from under 300 to over 1,200? Would he regard that deployment as still not warranting inclusion in the strategic arms limitation process?

I confirm that if the Trident system that we are procuring were used to its full extent there would be an increase in the total number of nuclear warheads deployed.

"We have made it clear that if Soviet and US strategic arsenals were to be very substantially reduced, and if no significant changes had occurred in Soviet defensive capabilities, Britain would want to review her position and to consider how best she could contribute to arms control in the light of the reduced threat."

Does my hon. Friend agree that deterrence is the number of warheads that the enemy perceives will penetrate its defences? Therefore, when we talk about the 1990s and beyond, the weapon systems that will be capable of penetrating those defences are important, not the number of warheads.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It flows from that that the parties in the House that do not support the replacement of the present Polaris system by Trident are in effect taking Britain away from having an independent nuclear deterrent of her own.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the first question? Why, granted the Government's argument that Polaris is clapped out, or will be in a few years' time, and granted that they want a nuclear deterrent, is it necessary to have a deterrent that is at least 400 per cent. more powerful than the present one? Even on the Government's argument that makes no sense.

The right hon. Gentleman is resting his question on a false premise. We have not yet taken any final decision on the number of warheads to be deployed under the Trident system.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the air defence of the United Kingdom.

A substantial programme of both qualitative and quantitive improvements to the air defence of the United Kingdom is well advanced and the Royal Air Force will shortly begin to derive the benefits. Details are set out in chapter three of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983".

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and applaud the alacrity with which Royal Air Force pilots can intercept the occasional incursions of Soviet aircraft over the United Kingdom. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there are big holes in our ground-based radar defences and give an assurance that speedy remedies will be applied to close those holes?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that there are incursions that threaten our air space, against which we have to be ever vigilant. The RAF does a remarkable job. I take note of my hon. Friend's point.

What improvements have been initiated in Britain's air defences by the Government since May 1979?

Many improvements have been made. They are set out in chapter three of the defence estimates statement, to which I refer the hon. Member.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that "air defence" also means ground defence of our operational stations? Will he pay tribute to the work of the Royal Air Force Regiment in Scotland and the Royal Auxilliary Air Force Regiment in Scotland for their outstanding work in maintaining the security of our bases?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I take this opportunity gratefully to pay just the tribute that he requests.

The Secretary of State will recall that chapter three of the defence estimates shows the strain of the fortress Falklands policy on British air defences. Can he say when the new refurbished squadrons are likely to come into service?

We hope that the Phantoms which the Government have purchased to replace those deployed to the south Atlantic will be delivered by the Americans next year.

Granted that the Government seek to justify the deployment of cruise missiles, inter alia, to deter a conventional tank assault by the Warsaw pact powers in western Europe, will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question that I put yesterday, which he did not answer, on the number of guided anti-tank missiles already deployed by NATO—

Order. I do not think that the hon. Member is relating his question to the issue being considered.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of assisting our defences is to keep open bases such as RAF Kemble, which has not only saved 550 jobs but has saved the United States of America a considerable sum of money, and that that is a classic example of proper Anglo-American co-operation?

I understand my hon. Friend's natural interest in the matter. The Government do all that they can to maintain a proper system of air bases. The way in which we do that must be compatible with the resources available for that purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current status of the experimental aircraft project.

The experimental aircraft programme is a joint venture by the Ministry of Defence and industry to bring together and demonstrate in one aircraft specific advanced technologies which will be applicable to a variety of future aircraft. The first phase of this technology demonstrator programme covers construction of the aircraft and its first flight, which is expected to be in 1986. The programme is proceeding according to plan.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that while the work forces in the military aircraft division of British Aerospace and its major subcontractors are well satisfied with the lead given by the Government, especially by the Minister in fighting for his corner about this important aeroplane, the importance of this project strategically and for the defence industry cannot be over-exaggerated? Will he continue to press most strongly alongside his Foreign Office colleagues to persuade the French, the Germans, the Spanish and the Italians, and whoever else may participate in this collaborative programme, to take early and urgent decisions to get the aircraft flying?

I can reassure my hon. Friend on that score. Both he and the House will wish to know that the air staffs of the countries to which he referred are at present consulting closely together to ensure that they have a common requirement.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a firm commitment to the aircraft by Britain could act as a powerful stimulus to other countries to make a similar commitment and would also assist in marketing the aircraft?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the standard of Army clothing; and if he will make a statement.

While we are generally satisfied with the standard of Army clothing, we are constantly seeking to improve it within the financial resources available.

Bearing in mind that our service personnel may be required to wear their boots and other items of clothing in conditions ranging from a Falklands winter to a desert, can my hon. Friend say what tests on boots are made to ensure that they are up to the required standard?

I assure my hon. Friend that rigorous tests are made both on a trial basis and operationally. I also assure my hon. Friend that, although a limited number of new combat boots have proved defective, the new boot is regarded as a great improvement on its predecessor and that fact has been confirmed by the many soldiers whom I have found wearing them. We shall be making further substantial improvement in Army clothing next year. We shall be issuing new socks, helmets, waterproof jackets and trousers, and a new rucksack. My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that we are also issuing new thermal underwear.

I am sure that the Royal Marines in Norway will welcome the thermal underwear. Can the hon. Gentleman say how many incidents of trench foot occurred in the Falklands campaign? Can he afford to be so confident about the quality of the combat boots?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the precise number, but the equipment report arising from the Falklands campaign highlighted the weaknesses in the old combat boot. That is why the new combat boot is being brought into service. The forces whom I met in the Falklands regard the new high combat boot as a substantial improvement on its predecessor.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Air Force has any plans to purchase additional Nimrod aircraft.

No, Sir.

Bearing in mind the vital role that these aircraft perform, does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential to maintain the industrial capability that will be needed in the future to enhance their performance? Can he now say definitely that there will be a comprehensive return to the work programme?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The Royal Air Force must have adequate contractor support, but he must discuss with the company involved the matters that he has in mind.

Have there been any complaints about the Nimrod AD470 Marconi transceiver equipment when operating at 1,000 to 1,500 miles?

None of which I am aware.

Since the French air force is not, apparently, to purchase the AWACS equipment from the United States, are the Government and the Ministry of Defence making strenuous efforts to appraise them of the merits of the Nimrod?

Yes, we are.

Have not SACLANT and CINCMAN said that they are desperately short of maritime patrol aircraft? How do the Government intend to rectify that deficiency together with their allies?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that SACLANT has such anxieties, but the fact remains that to open the line and build more of that type of aircraft would cost the Government a considerable sum of money.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the cost-effectiveness of maintaining United Kingdom forces in Cyprus.

The tasks and commitments of British forces stationed abroad are reviewed regularly. I am Satisfied that those in Cyprus perform a valuable function in a cost-effective manner.

In view of the important role that Cyprus has enabled our forces to play in the Middle East in the recent past, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we should ask our NATO allies to acknowledge the enormous debt owed to the British forces in Cyprus and that we should continue to maintain our present position?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. We are aware of the value of such sovereign bases and we have no plans to withdraw from them.

When the Secretary of State was assessing the cost of the base, did he take into account in compiling the balance sheet the fact that we have refused to pay more than £200 million in rent to the Cyprus Government?

That matter would have to be discussed between my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the appropriate authorities.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that rent of £200 million amounts to blackmail by the Cyprus Government? We have no commitment to pay that money.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that his remarks contribute to the answer that I would have given the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond).

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy about the formulation of a common operational requirement for a new agile combat aircraft between the Royal Air Force, Luftwaffe and Italian air force.

My right hon. Friend has taken the opportunity of meetings this year with the Defence Ministers of the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy to discuss the potential requirement for a future combat aircraft.

Is not that development a great step forward, especially for the evolution of a joint project to meet the operational requirements of the three Panavia partners? Does not that mean that we will build on the success of the Tornado industrial experience to fulfil western Europe's joint requirement for a new military aircraft?

Although I agree with my hon. Friend, I am sure he agrees with me that there is still a long and complicated road ahead to achieve such collaboration.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that in the negotiations there will be no relinquishing of the rights of British Aerospace to hold the design authority for the development of the new aircraft?

We obviously wish to safeguard that position, as our potential collaborators will seek to safeguard similar positions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further representations he has received over the placing of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mr. Evans).

Is the Minister aware that the concern about cruise missiles, far from diminishing, has become even greater during the past few weeks, especially because of the events in Grenada? Is he further aware that that agitation and concern are not confined to only a few people, and is bound to grow? Should not the Government take note of the sincere feelings of so many people who are opposed to cruise missiles being stationed in Britain?

The House knows that that matter was debated extensively yesterday, including the dual-key issue. The House reached a decisive conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if there have been any recent changes in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence policy.

No, Sir. NATO remains committed to the policy that all individual members have supported since the Alliance was founded, keeping the peace by effective deterrence.

Will the Minister comment on the suspicion that the decision, in Quebec, to remove 1,400 old battlefield nuclear weapons will lead to their replacement by the W73 warhead, which has already been produced and stockpiled in the United States?

The announcement that we made in Quebec was for a net reduction in warheads. We took no decision to introduce new systems.

Will my right hon. Friend urge his NATO colleagues to give urgent consideration to the deficiency represented by the lack of an offensive chemical capability? Will he bear in mind that the Warsaw pact forces have that capability, to which we have no answer? Does not that call into question exactly what we are doing along the northern flank if we cannot answer that chemical capability?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is one of the most serious arguments against those who believe in one-sided disarmament. When this country made a one-sided gesture, the only response from the Soviet Union was to increase its capability in chemical warfare.

Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), does not the Secretary of State think that he should have agitated in Ottawa last week for a much greater cut in battlefield nuclear weapons? He knows the obsolescent state of many of them and is aware of the onset of new technology. Was not that a time, above all, when a meaningful gesture would have assisted talks in Geneva and, in addition, could have been reconciled with reality? Should not the numbers have been cut by at least 50 per cent.?

I am always interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say. As every one of the 2,400 nuclear warheads that we have agreed to remove were present when the Labour Government were in office, I find his remarks staggering.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been any variations in the plans to deploy cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common from the proposals announced on 17 June 1980, Official Report, c. 1342.

No, Sir.

Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the likely cost to the Government of the installation of cruise missiles at Greenham common and the security services necessary at the base?

My hon. Friend, perhaps above all others in the House, will realise that it is difficult to give costs for the security arrangements at Greenham common. We are forced to respond to the demands that others impose upon us. Obviously, substantial costs are imposed upon the police forces of the Thames Valley. We wish that those could be avoided. In the last resort, it is our duty to defend the bases, and that we shall do.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 November.

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

Does the Prime Minister regard the publication yesterday of a confidential memo to her from the Secretary of State for Defence as information that should have remained secret—in which case why was it published — or does she believe that that information should have been available to all hon. Members? Does not the publication of the memo demonstrate that the negotiations at Geneva were long since abandored by the Government and have been simply a soul-cleansing charade?

It is a great pity that a Secretary of State cannot write a memo to a Prime Minister in the absolute certainty that it will remain confidential. Whichever party is in Government, it is vital that confidentiality should remain absolute.

As disturbing allegations will be made tonight in a Yorkshire Television programme about Windscale, and the possible environmental and public health effects of the plant upon the surrounding area, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the investigation to be conducted by the National Radiological Protection Board and a unit at Oxford university is fully and independently conducted and that the report is published in full when it becomes available next year so that Parliament and the public can form a view about it?

I have been informed about the claims to be made on the programme. The levels of radioactivity around Windscale are comprehensively monitored and public exposure is kept within the limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, as endorsed by the National Radiological Protection Board. If claims are made that particular hazards have been underestimated, they will be properly and urgently examined by the Departments responsible.

Has the right hon. Lady seen the figures released by the DHSS, which show that some 15 million people are living on the poverty line — a substantial increase since she took office? Is she proud of the fact that while the very rich have had substantial tax cuts, many other people have been forced into long-term unemployment, poverty and deprivation because of her policies?

I have no great belief in those figures. A great deal depends upon what is called the breadline, which was the phrase used in the report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, between 6 million and 7 million people are dependent on supplementary benefit. The benefit is available to them, and it is right that that provision is properly made.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that earlier this afternoon the Secretary of State for Defence suggested that our troops might be prepared to shoot demonstrators at Greenham common? Can the Prime Minister confirm that suggestion and state the circumstances in which that may happen?

I understand that my right hon. Friend said that this Government, as all others have done, will defend bases and installations in the same way as has been done by previous Governments. It is the duty of Governments to defend installations.

In the light of last night's debate, can the Prime Minister tell us how many British nuclear weapons we have deployed in the United States?

I fail to see the relevance of the question, but doubtless the right hon. Gentleman will reveal it.

rose—

Is my right hon. Friend aware—

Order. Will the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) wait a moment, please?

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, especially as it is difficult to determine the accuracy of the Prime Minister's reply. As we are led to suspect that the answer to my question is none, can the Prime Minister tell us what validity there is in the central proposition made by the Secretary of State in last night's debate? Does she not agree with millions of our citizens who believe that there is a certain imbalance when the United States has cruise missiles — [Interruption.] Noise may well signify concern over this issue. The United States has cruise missiles under its sole control in our country, but all we have in the United States is trust? Does the right hon. Lady think that trust in the RAF Regiment is enough to safeguard our sovereignty or our security?

The same argument would apply to American soldiers in Europe, and British soldiers in the United States. The fact is that the United States is contributing massively to the defence of Europe, and we should be very grateful.

If the right hon. Lady cannot distinguish between the presence of conventional arms and soldiers and the presence of cruise missiles, then God help us, for nobody else will. Is she aware that no arrangement between her Government and the United States Government is covered by an arrangement made 30 years ago in a different period of technology, that General Eugene La Rocque has described her agreements as bureaucratic obfuscation, and that our people will not tolerate that domination, especially against the background of last week's absolute desertion of any acknowledgement of British interest?

The right hon. Gentleman reveals that he is a total unilateralist and that his object is to undermine NATO, which is the defence of the free world. As to what he said about the rules that have governed the use of missiles on our soil and in British territorial waters, the whole argument on cruise missiles was reconsidered, as I said before the House rose, and the policy was reaffirmed. President Reagan said that that arrangement was equivalent to Britain having a veto on the firing of these weapons.

Returning to the NHS, is my right hon. Friend aware that on cleaning, laundry and office equipment, the NHS spends no less than £1,100 million a year? Would it not be extraordinary if increased efficiency were not obtainable on this enormous expenditure of money?

Yes, Sir. It is clear, both from the Griffiths report and from the Merrison report, that there is much scope for economy within the NHS. The Griffiths report, most recently, said:

"It is almost a denial of the management process to argue that the modest levels of cost improvement at present required of the NHS are unachievable without impacting seriously on the level of service."

Reading.

As hon. Members will be aware, Prime Ministers answering from the Despatch Box are entitled to quote from a report.

"Indeed, it would be surprising in a service as large as the NHS if there were not room for considerable improvement in the way resources are used in many places."

As someone who can afford to pay for the medical treatment that she needs, is not the Prime Minister even slightly concerned that her Government's petty economies are causing so many preventable deaths among kidney patients who cannot afford to jump the queue?

The record of this Government compared with that of the Labour Government on the NHS has been absolutely first class, as was shown in the debate the other day. As to kidney treatments, in 1981 we treated 1,550 new patients, compared with 600 in 1971. Numbers have increased by 50 per cent. since 1976 and the number of kidney transplants was over 1,000 in 1982, more than in any other European country.

Will my right hon. Friend take time to look at the recent reports of the London Business School and the CBI survey? Do not these encouraging economic forecasts prove beyond doubt that the Government's economic strategy is correct and that it should be adhered to?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The latest CBI survey is encouraging. It provides further confirmation of the recovery — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] For the sake of better accuracy on what the CBI survey says, I am reading. It says that business confidence continues to grow, as does optimism about export prospects, that output is expected to continue rising and investment is projected to grow at 5 per cent. through 1984, and that costs and prices are rising only slowly. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Labour Members cannot bear to hear good news.

In view of the democratic elections that have been held in Argentina, and in particular the defeat of the Peronists and the return of a radical Government under the President, will the Prime Minister say to the Argentine people and their President that she wishes them well and is prepared to see an opening of a dialogue between our two countries?

He is after a trip.

Perhaps, fortunately, I did not hear that comment.

Secondly, will the Prime Minister make a distinction between the British retaining sovereignty and a readiness to discuss the future of the Falkland Islanders? Will she realise that by making — [Interruption.] —sovereignty a totem-pole, she is impairing the possibility of a negotiated settlement in the Falklands and in Hong Kong?

We are always pleased when a country returns to democracy. There can be no question about that. I hope that, now that that country has returned to democratic ways, it will be prepared to consider better economic and commercial relations between itself and Britain. As to sovereignty, the Falkland Islands are a British sovereignty and although the right hon. Gentleman said that that should not be the touchstone, the House has always regarded the touchstone for the Falkland Islands as the wishes of the islanders. They, too, have a right to self-determination and have made clear their view that they should remain British.

asked the Prime Minister tf she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the Labour Government made the largest cuts in capital costs in the history of the National Health Service?

Yes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in an excellent debate the other day, our record on the National Health Service is better than that of any previous Government.

The Prime Minister said a few moments ago that the latest CBI forecast was encouraging. As the last six reports from the CBI have been encouraging, what is so different about this one?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be glad that progress towards recovery continued. [Interruption.] I should have thought also that he would be glad to know that the figures just published show that the total number of jobs in the economy rose in the second quarter, the first rise for over four years.