asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will take steps to increase research and development in the United Kingdom on radar equipment for naval vessels.

Our overall investment in naval radars in the United Kingdom, including production as well as research and development, has been increasing in real terms and will continue to do so. I am glad to say that naval radars manufactured in the United Kingdom are as good as any in the world.

In view of the recent success of the Sea Wolf naval points defence missile system in destroying an Exocet sea-skimming missile of the type that caused such destruction during the Falkland Islands campaign, can the Minister say whether he has any further plans for equipping the Navy with these missiles? Will he recognise the need for such orders in the Marconi plants in my constituency, which have done such marvellous work in this connection in the past and which were caused such anxiety when the naval Estimates were cut a short time ago?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is a consistent advocate of Marconi's cause, and I acknowledge that. We were delighted with the success of Sea Wolf in intercepting at maximum range an Exocet missile, which I announced in the Navy debate at the end of November. That confirms Sea Wolf's position as the best all-round point defence missile system in the world. I congratulate all the contractors involved, including British Aerospace and Marconi, on this achievement. It was announced yesterday that the Ministry of Defence had placed a second production order for Sea Wolf with radars, to be made by Marconi Radar Systems Ltd. It is a valuable order for the company. We shall continue to fit Sea Wolf to type 22 frigates on build and to the future type 23 frigates. In addition, we are examining options for improving the air defence capability of a number of in-service vessels, but no decisions have yet been taken.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in reaching decisions on the future of naval radar, it is also important to have an early decision on surface-to-surface guided weapons? On that score, does he hold out any hope for an early decision on SSGWs and an all-British solution to that problem?

I know of my hon. Friend's continued interest in the SSGW, but he must not attempt to draw me and have me prejudge the decision. All I can say is that the decision will be taken as soon as is practicable and possible.

In view of the ever-increasing cost of this class of work and the further need for commonality, certainly within NATO, is there not a case for collaborative agreements between ourselves and our European NATO allies?

That is a matter that we always have in mind.

Does not my hon. Friend's answer amount to the fact that Sea Wolf is a great success, but that it would never have come about if there had been any element of nationalisation in the firms concerned? I have in mind particularly the future of Marconi. Is it not important that the company should not have a sword of Damocles in the form of possible nationalisation hanging over it?

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his question. We seek maximum competition in MOD procurement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about cruise missiles at Greenham common.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many letters he has received in his official capacity on the issue of cruise over the past year.

I received 2,102 letters from Members of Parliament and from members of the public during 1983.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Members of Parliament are grateful that he has acknowledged our representations that we should be allowed to visit Greenham common, a visit which I believe has been arranged for next Tuesday? Will he confirm that it is his intention that the visit should take place by helicopter? What is the reason for this appalling waste of public money, if that is what is to happen? Is it because the Secretary of State is afraid that some of us might talk to the women of Greenham common before entering the base?

From my knowledge of events, Labour Members who wish to talk to the Greenham common women have already taken the opportunity to do so.

In view of the massive propaganda drive being conducted by the CND and other organisations, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to get across the basic fact that we could very quickly get rid of cruise missiles if only the Russians would agree to remove their comparable weapons? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend point out that we are trying to defend ourselves against a regime which sends protesters against nuclear weapons to prison or psychiatric hospitals?

My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the matter. We in the NATO Alliance have spent four years trying to avoid the need to deploy cruise missiles, and it is only because the Soviet Union refused to conclude satisfactorily the arms control negotiations with us that we took the inevitable steps, in policy terms, that we did.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I delivered to his office this morning a large chunk of concrete which the Greenham common women believe was thrown over the perimeter fence on to one of their tents in the middle of the night just before Christmas by a British soldier? Has he noticed the recent reports in the press of the harassment of the Greenham common women by British soldiers? Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that he is opposed to any such harassment and that if any Member of Parliament provides him with precise details of any such incident it will be investigated?

I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. I am against members of the armed forces throwing concrete at people.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deployment of cruise represents a significant setback for Soviet foreign policy and that the women of Greenham common are in no way representative of public opinion?

My hon. Friend is right, and the reason why the ladies of Greenham common have to go to such lengths to get publicity for their cause is that they cannot be elected and voice their views in a democratic forum.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs)? Is it a fact that the Ministry of Defence is making arrangements to fly Members of Parliament into Greenham common? If that is so, why is it being done in this way? Of what is the Secretary of State afraid?

We shall make arrangements to fly those hon. Members who wish to see Greenham common to the base by fixed-wing aircraft. The reason for that is clear. We think that it will enable Members of Parliament to go about their legitimate functions of representing and inquiring into these matters without the need to face organised demonstrations—

Now we know.

—by people who are seeking media coverage for a cause and whom right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would be free to consult if it were in their interest to do so.

rose—

Order. There are other questions on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the information services of his Department.

Seventy-one service men and 268 civil servants are engaged in the information services of the Department and of the individual armed services. They are concerned primarily with informing the public about the Government's defence policy and of the activities of the armed forces.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department makes available suitable material to schools and educational and other institutions setting out the NATO and Western defence case, to ensure that there is a proper balance in peace studies and allied subjects?

I assure my hon. Friend that publications from my Department to inform the public about various aspects of defence policy are freely available to teachers and those in the academic world who want to have the Government's view.

Will the Minister take care to advise regular officers taking part in presentation schemes and teams that when speaking to the public they should not indulge in what might appear to be political polemics either about Governments or parties in this country or about the rulers of states abroad?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the armed services have a strict tradition of party political neutrality. The presentations whereby the armed services seek to explain their respective roles that are carried on under this Government have been carried on under successive Governments.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the costs of British troops in the Lebanon during 1984; and if he will make a statement.

If the British contingent of the multinational force were to remain in Beirut throughout 1984, the additional cost of having our men there rather than at their normal location would be in the region of £800,000. The British contingent continues to patrol in Beirut and to provide the security force for the ceasefire committee, both of which roles are highly valued.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the British officers and men who carry out their work with such distinction, especially in protecting the ceasefire committee?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. I readily pay a warm tribute to the outstanding contribution that has been made by our small contingent to the multinational force, which has exercised influence to the good out of all proportion to its size.

Is the Minister able to develop the Prime Minister's implication of her wish for an orderly transfer from a British force to a United Nations' peacekeeping force, a view which the Liberal/Social Democratic alliance supports'? Has he any thought of giving such a force a more effective mandate than UNIFIL had in the south of Lebanon?

For some time we have felt that the development of the United Nations existing role in the Lebanon would be a practical way of providing an alternative to the multinational force, and we are continuing to discuss that possibility with all interested parties.

Is my hon. Friend aware that everyone realises the magnificent part which our small number of troops have played in Beirut? Is their sole purpose there merely to guard a building in which from time to time peace discussions are held? What is the long-term future of these troops? Are they not every day being exposed to unnecessary dangers?

The function of the troops in Beirut is to provide physical evidence of the presence of the multinational force by patrolling in Beirut. It is also to provide the all-important security force for the ceasefire committee. It is unlikely that the ceasefire committee would be meeting if its various members were not satisfied with the adequacy of the security arrangements, as they certainly currently are with the British presence.

In view of President Reagan's statement yesterday, does the Minister accept that we in Britain have a responsibility to ease world tension, that the Lebanon is a part of the world where that can occur if we involve the United Nations and that a large number of people who are extremely well informed doubt the wisdom of the presence of British troops?

There is little doubt that if the four components the MNF were withdrawn the violence and bloodshed in Beirut would be far greater than it is at present.

If it is necessary to withdraw British troops from the Lebanon, why is it thought that United Nations troops would do a better or different job?

The United Nations, by its nature, tends to have a more permanent existence—for example, as in Cyprus—than the multinational force, which has always been envisaged as a temporary response to the particular serious situation that has arisen in Beirut.

Is the Minister aware that we all agree that the British troops have done a marvellous job in the impossible, dangerous situation in which the Government have irresponsibly put them? Is it not a fact that the British troops went in on the coat tails of President Reagan and the Government are now totally out of control of the situation? The troops will come out if President Reagan wants them to come out, and they will stay there if he does not. Why can we not show some independence in British foreign policy?

The right hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that when the British component first went into Beirut it did so with the support of the Opposition. He can be certain that the Government continue to take an independent view of the problem. Our view is that it is in the interests of stability in Beirut that the four component members of the MNF act together and that we should stay in Beirut.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans for the sale of Alsager royal ordnance factory.

We have at present no plans for the sale of ROF Radway Green, Alsager. As I said in the House yesterday, we shall be considering carefully the best means of privatising the royal ordnance factories either as a group or in parts.

As that particular ordnance factory has contributed more than £194 million in sales for the taxpayer in the past 10 years. will the Minister tell the House what safeguards are to be built in to ensure that if the factory is sold he will know who holds the shares, as it is painfully obvious that no safeguards are envisaged by the Government and that any foreign national whatever could hold controlling shares through a second or third company?

The safeguards will be the same as those adopted for other forms of privatisation carried out by the Government and will no doubt be enshrined in the articles of association of the new company.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 1 November 1983.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the continued and increasing concern of my constituents working in the British aerospace industry and of others throughout the country about this project? In view of the imminent decline in Tornado production, will he say something about the agreements made by the air staffs on the future European fighter aircraft and about the industrial cooperation that must follow if the project is to go ahead? Will he also give us some idea of the time scale?

I am sure that the House will welcome the outline joint staff target signed on 16 December by the chiefs of air staff of the five participating countries. The importance of this is that it represents further progress than has ever been achieved before, in the sense that all the air forces have now agreed a common requirement. It is now time for all the industries concerned to play their part. I do not suggest that the process will be easy, but we believe that there are great advantages in a joint programme and we are working hard to that end.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in any aircraft purchasing the important thing is to ensure that the aircraft purchased is the most suitable to do the job for the Royal Air Force? Does he further agree that in considering this project it is important to ensure that the requirements of the RAF are not subjected to or negated by other requirements?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I remind him that one of the five signatories was the chief of air staff of the Royal Air Force, who recognised that the future requirements of the RAF were catered for in the outline staff target.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had any representations from other Governments about the targeting of cruise missiles to be deployed in the United Kingdom.

Her Majesty's Government have discussed NATO's twin track decision on INF deployment and arms control with a wide range of foreign Governments. I do not, however, propose to disclose the contents of the discussions.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that none of the cruise missiles deployed in this country will be targeted on inhabited areas such as the Ruhr which are within the perimeters of our NATO allies? Will he reconsider his policy of not commenting on the targeting of missiles? If, after reconsidering the policy, he still declines to comment, will he urge the controlling power to consider the matter and to make a statement on it?

The hon. Gentleman has already raised this with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I cannot and would not wish to add to her reply. He will be fully aware, however, that the purpose of NATO is that of a defensive alliance. Targeting policy is therefore bound to be designed with that object in mind.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with Ministry of Defence arrangements for informing the Soviet Union of the nuclear-free zones in the United Kingdom so that that country's targeting can be kept continually up to date?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I must be frank and admit that he has spotted a lacuna in our organisation which I shall immediately seek to rectify.

I would not be as sure as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a nuclear safety committee which advises the Government and which has satisfied itself about the safety of these weapon systems. He will also be aware that it is the same procedure as that which existed under the previous Labour Government.

Can my right hon. Friend give us some idea not so much about the targeting of cruise as about the briefing that he may have given to his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary prior to the talks in Stockholm, with regard to cruise particularly?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has taken a great deal of interest in these matters. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself, as members of the Government, have a very clear joint objective for the Stockholm talks, and that is to persuade the Soviet Union to take them seriously and seek meaningful arrangements, which are readily available from the Western Alliance.

The Secretary of State may be reluctant to talk about targeting, but is it not clear from literature published in the United States and in Europe that the cruise missile is targeted on military targets which would be considered significant if a war were to break out in Europe? Is it not a fact that, rather than be obsessed with cruise missiles, he should try to move—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is as obsessed with cruise missiles as other people are. That is one of our condemnations of his defence policy. Should he not move away from his obsession and realise that cruise missiles, like battlefield nuclear weapons, are a product of NATO's out-of-date concept of fighting a limited nuclear war? If we could move NATO away from the first use of nuclear weapons, is it not the case that cruise weapons, like battlefield nuclear weapons, would not be necessary?

I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman might feel that the obsession is his. The trouble With his obsession is that he talks only about the NATO cruise deployment. He seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that over the last decade the Soviet Union has developed a range of cruise missiles capable of being launched from ground, sea or air. He never seems to have any complaints about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for the dispersal of cruise missiles from Greenham common for training purposes.

As I have already made clear, the arrangements will be adequate to enable the personnel to train fully for their operational role. I am not prepared to discuss details.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that to enable cruise missiles to be maintained at a state of operational readiness they will have to be dispersed throughout the countryside? Will he say whether, in the event of peaceful demonstrations which will undoubtedly accompany the dispersal of those missiles, the security of those missiles and the policing of those demonstrations will be the responsibility of unarmed British policemen or of armed American service men?

On the first question that the hon. Gentleman puts to me about the need to deploy off base, the weapons systems could be fired from within the base, but, as the last White Paper made clear, the system is designed to be widely deployed off base.

That is why the right hon. Gentleman has no control over them.

If training exercises take place, the position is that they will not be training exercises using live weapons systems. I imagine that the proper answer to the hon. Gentleman in that context is that there will not be a need for the guards accompanying those deployments to be armed with live weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on security at the Greenham common base.

Security at the base is under constant review. A number of further security measures have been implemented in recent months and others are under consideration.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should keep in perspective the security threat posed by the so-called peace women? We should not over-react by spending too high a percentage of the defence budget on guarding the Greenham common base and playing straight into the hands of CND and its supporters, who would like the money spent on defence to be spent elsewhere.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly, a balance must be struck between the security needs of the base and, as he rightly points out, not creating an unnecessary and unjustified diversion of both finance and manpower into protecting the outer perimeter fence.

Is it not a fact that the women who have got into Greenham common have proved that there is no real security there, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend who represents the area, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), has actually said that? Is it not also a fact that to get in — one wonders whether this is how the missiles will be got out—Members of Parliament and delegations will have to go over the women's heads in helicopters? Is that the sort of security the exists at that base, not to mention the obscenities perpetrated by American troops against the women outside the base—[Interruption.]—which some of us have witnessed, including concrete blocks being thrown at the women by American troops. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] We have seen that happen.

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Greenham women have not proved that there is no security at the base. There has been no penetration of the highest security areas.

I acknowledge the need for a balance, but does my hon. Friend accept that the repeated illegal excursions of these women on to the base is a matter of growing national concern? Does he further accept that it is equally a matter of concern that appropriately severe measures do not appear to be taken against those who break the law in this fashion?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the penetration even of the outer perimeter fence must be a matter of concern. That is why, as I said in my main answer, we have taken a number of measures to improve security, and further measures are under consideration. The question of sanctions is a matter for the Home Secretary.

In regard to breaking the law and sanctions in this case, is it not a fact that two different laws apply to the security forces at Greenham common? If a British soldier breaks the law, he is subject to the common law of Great Britain. If an American soldier breaks the law, he is subject only to American military law. If the Government desire acceptance of their cruise missiles programme, why do they not make sure that American soldiers are also subject to British law?

The view which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed is completely incorrect. The Visiting Forces Act is on the statute book on the same basis as it has been for successive Governments. I urge him to read in detail the excellent speech by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department when answering one of the Christmas Adjournment debates, in which he set out the legal position extremely fully and succinctly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet any of his Warsaw pact counterparts; and what matters he expects to discuss.

Neither I nor any of my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Defence have any current plans to do so.

In the eventuality that meetings at Stockholm may take place between representatives of NATO Governments and Warsaw pact Governments, will my hon. Friend and his colleagues make it abundantly clear to those members of the Warsaw pact that appeasement and pacifism are alien doctrines, certainly to the 13 million people who voted Conservative at the last general election and, presumably, to members of the Social Democratic party, and that we in this country will continue to defend the right to choose our own Government and defence policy unless and until there is at least some evidence that the Soviet Union is prepared to withdraw its missiles from the eastern European countries?

I am sure that the ruling authorities in the Soviet Union are aware of that position. The confidence-building measures that are being discussed in Stockholm today will relate to various matters, including the notification of manoeuvres and other matters on which we have taken the initiative in recent years.

How many observers do we have at Warsaw pact manoeuvres and how many observers does the pact have at ours?

Without prior notice, I could not answer that question. However, we have gone beyond what might be called the statutory requirement. We have taken the initiative to inform the Warsaw pact of manoeuvres, when it was not strictly necessary for us to do so under the agreement, and we have offered it facilities for observers. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject.

Could my hon. Friend suggest to the Secretary of State that, at the next NATO ministerial meeting, he should discuss seriously with his NATO counterparts a response to the suggestions of First Secretary Andropov about reductions in chemical weapons by the Warsaw pact?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend's important suggestion, but a realistic and worthwhile response from the Soviet Union to the initiative taken by the Government late last year is still awaited.

When the Minister and the Secretary of State get around to meeting their Warsaw pact counterparts, will they discuss with them the 18 practical steps suggested by the former United States Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara, for reducing the risk of nuclear war?

The steps to which the hon. Gentleman refers will, I hope, be among the subjects considered at the discussions in Stockholm, which will begin today and will last for some time.

In what respect, if any, will the position of Her Majesty's Government in Stockholm differ from that of the American Administration?

The position of Her Majesty's Government on the confidence-building measures is the same as that of other members of the NATO Alliance, in that we wish to see an improvement in those measures, if the Soviet Union will reciprocate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of SS20 missiles targeted on western Europe.

There are currently 243 SS20 missiles targeted on western Europe, which means 729 SS20 warheads.

Is it not the case that if, at any time over the past four years, Russia had agreed to dismantle its SS20s, cruise need not have been deployed? Far from doing so, the Russians tripled the number targeted on western Europe. Is it not still Government policy, nevertheless, that we would withdraw cruise if the Russians agreed to dismantle all of their SS20s?

I can confirm that NATO's clear policy is to withdraw both its cruise and Pershing II missiles if the Soviet Union removes its SS20s, and its SS4s and SS5s.

While I recognise that there has been an increase in the number of SS20s, may I ask the Minister to turn his attention to newspaper reports last week to the effect that the United States is at present turning out eight nuclear warheads each day? What will that do for the confidence-building measures in Stockholm?

The hon. Gentleman must consider the historical perspective. It was the Soviet Union which took the initiative in producing a new type of longer-range intermediate ballistic missile. It began to deploy them in 1977 and the numbers have increased remorselessly ever since. When NATO took its dual track decision in 1979, there were 81 missiles facing west. By November 1981 there were 171, and there are now 243. The escalation has been wholly on the Soviet side.

How many so-called peace camps are there outside the SS20 bases?

As my hon. Friend knows, the answer is zero. That is symptomatic of the profound differences between our two societies.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the introduction of the Management Information System for Ministers into his Department.

The Management Information System for Ministers—MINIS—is now firmly established in the Ministry for Defence and is the focus for work aimed at improving the management of resources and increasing efficiency. In the initial MINIS round, some quarter of a million service men and civilians and the resources they manage have been encompassed by the system. The information has provided the basis for Ministers and senior officials to review organisational structures in the Department and the responsibilities and objectives of managers in different areas. MINIS has already led to management improvements, particularly through clarification of responsibilities, and has identified a range of areas for work directed towards improving efficiency and reducing the costs of defence overheads. This will be a continuing process.

Can my right hon. Friend yet say what savings he expects as a direct result of the introduction of MINIS?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in this matter. However, I cannot answer that question because substantial economies have been pursued and achieved in the Ministry of Defence over a number of years and the recent initiatives are a continuation of that process.

If the Secretary of State is so anxious to cut the cost of information services, and is so worried about the public relations image of the Ministry of Defence, why is it that when a young girl in his Department decides to take part in a bit of information servicing and sends some news to the newspapers, at no cost to the Ministry of Defence, he takes her to court?

I did not.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he anticipates further deployment of cruise missiles at Greenham common.

NATO deployments of cruise and Pershing II missiles are due to be completed over a five-year period. The programme for the deployment of 96 ground-launched cruise missiles at Greenham common will be completed well within that period, but I am not prepared to discuss specific details of further deliveries. As we have made clear, NATO's plans can be halted, modified or revised if results in negotiations in Geneva warrant it.

Now that NATO has demonstrated its resolve by making the initial deployment of cruise and Pershings, will Her Majesty's Government press strongly for a limited, deliberate suspension of further deployments to encourage the Soviets to return to meaningful negotiations in Geneva?

No, we would not be prepared to do that. What we would do, which I think achieves the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, would be to make it clear to the Soviet Union that any weapon systems that have been already deployed can be removed if the Soviet Union will reach meaningful arms control arrangements with us.

If my right hon. Friend accepts that what we have heard from the Labour Benches today shows, as always, how unfitted they are to be entrusted with the defence of the realm, what does he make of the fact that, while the alliance still has pretensions of grandeur about Government, during the past 48 hours we have seen that the position of the SDP on Polaris and the deployment of cruise is at variance with that of its Liberal partners? Does he think that that will appeal to the electorate and show that the alliance is fitted for office?

I suppose that if one has two policies, they could, arguably, be better than one, if the one is no good.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the initial programme of installation of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom has now been completed.

The first ground-launched cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common became operational at the end of 1983, in accordance with NATO's December 1979 decision.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the successful completion of that much-needed initial programme, may I ask what is happening on the ground now in the Soviet Union since the breakdown of the talks? Has there been any further deployment of SS20s in eastern Europe?

All the indications and information available to us show that the Soviet Union is continuing with the arms build-up in all categories of weapons systems, including the SS20s, which has characterised its recent defence policy.

As cruise missiles are increasingly deployed, will there not be an increased risk of confrontation between American military personnel and British civilians? In such circumstances, will not those American personnel come under the purview and discipline of the American military? All the evidence of recent years shows that the penalties imposed in such circumstances by the American military authorities are derisory. Will the Secretary of State review the operation of the Visiting Forces Act in the light of the new ball game?

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious question. We have considered the Visiting Forces Act to see whether the satisfaction expressed in it by the previous Labour Government justifies our continued confidence. In the main, it certainly does. I would accept the significance of the hon. Gentleman's point of view to this extent—the Government have a clear mandate for the deployment of the cruise weapon system. It is necessary for us to take the appropriate steps to carry out that mandate. There is no way in which we shall seek, or encourage, the frustration of that mandate by people who were unable to prevent the Government's election.

Will the Secretary of State clarify the confusion created by his Minister of State and confirm that if an American soldier engaged in security duties at Greenham common commits a prima facie criminal act he is subject in the first place not to English law but American military law? Will he confirm that that is the position?

My hon. Friend answered the question perfectly accurately. Visiting forces are governed in this country by the Visiting Forces Act 1952. In one way or the other, anyone found guilty of a crime is covered by the law of the land, with the option of the process of law being pursued either in the country itself or in the home country of the forces themselves. That position was set out clearly in the recent debate to which my hon. Friend drew attention, and that is the position which was found be perfectly satisfactory by the previous Labour Government.

No.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not convinced that the Secretary of State for Defence gave the House a correct interpretation of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. Might I ask the Home Secretary to read carefully what the Secretary of State for Defence said, and if what he said is not correct to publish a correction in the Official Report?

What the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 January.

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.

While I welcome the progress of the negotiations about the future of Hong Kong and the recent statements from the Chinese Government, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she agrees that once an agreement has been reached between Her Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government the people of Hong Kong would have to accept responsibility if they were to seek in any way to reject the agreement reached between the two Governments?

As my hon. Friend knows, our aim is to agree with China, through negotiations, and to reach an arrangement which will maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong in a way acceptable to the people of Hong Kong, to this Parliament and to the people of China. Yesterday I saw the Governor of Hong Kong together with all the unofficial members of EXCO, and repeated our commitment to Hong Kong.

As the Prime Minister justifies her decision to go ahead with the rate-capping Bill, which has been criticised extensively, on the basis that she pledged to do so to the electorate, how does she square that with a similar pledge that she gave to the electorate to abolish rates in October 1974, which she gave again to the electorate in 1979, and with her statement in the House in July 1983 that she would maintain rates?

I seem to remember that the Labour party, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, won the 1974 election, and that the Liberal party eventually kept the Labour Government in power for a longer period than it would otherwise have held office

Now that 1983 is behind us, would this be a good time for the Prime Minister to remind the country that during the election the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast a double figure inflation rate by the end of the year should the Tories win?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The success of the Government in getting down inflation and in holding it down is quite outstanding. When we returned to power, a 5 per cent. rate of inflation was thought almost impossible. We now regard 5 per cent. as high and we must get it down further.

Will the right hon. Lady inform the House of the going rate that a company must donate to the Tory party so that its chairman stands a reasonably good chance of receiving a knighthood? Is it a coincidence that, since 1979, 60 per cent. of the industrialists who have received knighthoods have been associated with companies which have donated to her party?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, any recommendations that I make go to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, whose powers I have strengthened.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that no Labour or Lib/Lab Government ever guaranteed pensioners travel passes in London, and that the Greater London council is currently raising pensioners' rates by millions of pounds to fund its spurious campaign to save their travel passes after its abolition? Will my right hon. Friend underwrite the promises of Conservative London boroughs to continue pensioners' travel passes?

My hon. Friend is right. It has been the policy of successive Governments that local authorities are in the best position to judge the needs in this respect—[Interruption.]—

Order. This sort of interruption takes time out of Question Time.

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the GLC has been running a scurrilous campaign and frightening many elderly people by causing them to think that their passes will not continue. The London Boroughs Association has recommended that the London boroughs take over the responsibility for this. The Government stand ready to discuss with the London boroughs any financial effect upon them—including any equalisation effect—of this or any other service that is similarly transferred.

Will the Prime Minister make a statement to the House about her involvement in the contract that was negotiated between Oman and Cementation International Ltd. and the involvement of members of her family?

Cheap.

I am answerable in the House for my actions as Prime Minister and I do so answer. As part of my public duty, I make strenuous efforts to secure contracts for this country. I do not decide upon those contracts. The decisions are made by the Governments who award those contracts. I do not distinguish between companies in Britain. My job is to ensure that we get the contracts and the business here. As a result of the middle east tour, hundreds of millions of pounds worth of contracts came to this country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, had she taken the opposite course and not sought to assist the British company to gain an important contract with the middle east, she would have heard criticism from the Opposition and from the whole of the country, and such criticism would have been justified and genuine?

I speak up for Britain and I am pleased that I do so successfully. I am pleased that, as a result, much business comes here.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why she chose to visit the Drummadd barracks of the Ulster Defence Regiment when she visited Northern Ireland before Christmas? Is she aware of the deep feelings of outrage within the Catholic community that arose from that visit? Does she agree that she could have visited any barracks anywhere in Northern Ireland. and that in choosing to visit the Drummadd barracks in the same week in which eight members of the regiment were charged with sectarian murders of Catholics in Northern Ireland she thereby gave an unfortunate Christmas present to the forces of violence in Northern Ireland?

I visited the barracks, which are the headquarters of the resident unit of the Grenadier Guards. I am entitled to do that. There were some members of the Ulster Defence Regiment there. The UDR does a superlative job. I visited it because it was the headquarters of the Grenadier Guards. I hope that no one is criticising me for that. May I make it quite clear that I am the first to condemn violence or terrorism anywhere, and especially in Northern Ireland.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister announce a new year resolution to the House today, giving her commitment not only to support the campaign for freedom of information in 1984 but to allow local authorities the freedom which she has always proclaimed is the right of everybody in the land?

No, Sir. With regard to local authorities the House has, I believe, the overriding right to have taxation within its decision. Everyone has a vote for a Member of the House; not everyone has a vote for local authorities. Many who have to contribute to the rates of local authorities do not have a vote. It is fully in keeping with democracy and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's duty of controlling public expenditure that we should have the right here to cap rates.

On the subject of information and, indeed, taxation, yesterday the Treasury published figures showing that £2·2 billion more will be taken out of wage packets this year than in 1979, despite the fact that there are 2 million fewer wage packets. How much of the higher stoppages by the Government, who are committed to reducing taxation, was due to the need to pay for much higher unemployment?

The total cost of unemployment is of the order of £5 billion. I have given the figure many times to the right hon. Gentleman. Unemployment under the national insurance scheme costs something like £1·6 billion and the rest is for social security. That is the amount that is paid out. Although there is an increasing amount of tax coming in, may I point out that that is more than accounted for by the increase in average earnings, because on the whole the standard of living of those who have been in work has gone up, after they have paid tax.

Is the Prime Minister aware that her figure of £5 billion is utterly implausible, even on the basis of straightforward multiplication? It would not be enough even to pay the benefits that have to go to the extra unemployed who have been created by the Government. Can she explain in real terms why, under her Government, £7 billion more is being paid in expenditure taxes and over £3 billion more in national insurance? How can she conclude, as she did on Sunday, that somehow this is not taxation.

The one main reason why a great deal more is being paid both in income tax and expenditure taxes is that wages, earnings and the standard of living have gone up under this Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the total burden of national insurance surcharge and corporation tax on businesses is less than the amount paid in rates by commerce? Is she aware that this is why business and industry want the legislation that we will be considering today? Can she assure them that the legislation will go through both Houses with the utmost dispatch?

I share my hon. Friend's view. The heaviest tax paid by all those in business and commerce is what they pay in rates, which is in the order of £6 billion. They pay that tax regardless of whether or not they make any profits. Of course, that comes off the tax that they pay to Her Majesty's Government. They and the overwhelming majority of the people want legislation to restrain the increase in rates.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall advising the Conservative party conference in 1965 against removing the power of local councils to levy rates on the grounds that that would undermine the entire basis of local government? Is that not just what the Rates Bill will do?

The Bill leaves enormous powers to levy rates. If some authorities had not overspent so much, last year's rate burden would have almost stood still. No, authorities still have considerable powers to levy rates but they do not have unlimited power to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as a substantial part of the rates are paid by businesses, which have no vote—

Rubbish.

—the argument that the rate-capping Bill is a threat to local democracy amounts to no more than a pool of crocodile tears which have been shed by people whose real attitude to democracy can be seen by their resistance to the Trade Union Bill?

Yes. Some 60 per cent. of rates are paid by business and commerce. The overwhelming majority of rates are paid by people who do not necessarily have a vote in the election of the authority that imposes those rates.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the failure of an important building society in London a few days ago? Is she further aware that thousands of investors have been jeopardised in that they have been unable to withdraw their savings? Will she introduce legislation to reform building societies to afford real and effective protection for investors?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the building society in question has been taken over by the Woolwich. I believe that all investors will be paid. The takeover was arranged extremely well and has protected the interests of investors in what was the New Cross building society.