asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with his United States counterpart on space defence systems.

I enjoy satisfactory and frequent consultations with Mr. Weinberger on all matters of common defence interest, including space.

Given Britain's knowledge and expertise in satellite technology, is there not here an opportunity for the closest possible collaboration with the United States on anti-satellite and anti-missile technology from the point of view of space defence systems?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that our speciality is much more in communication satellites than in any other activity. It is important to remember that at this stage the Americans are considering a very long-term research programme. It is, therefore, much too early to anticipate any possible developments that could come at a later stage.

Do the British Government support President Reagan's decision to develop the capability to fight a nuclear war in space?

The President is considering the possibilities of ensuring that there are no threats to the United States or its allies from space developments. It is a long-term research project and it is understandable, given the capability of the Soviet Union, that he should undertake such a research consideration.

Whatever consultations may proceed with the United States, particularly in the context of NASA and perhaps in relation to civil applications spreading to military use, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that the European option might also be explored, because we may want to consider a situation which is simply not left to the Russians and the Americans?

My hon. Friend is as aware as I am of the history of European collaboration on space projects. I believe that there is an argument for continuing to keep in close touch on these matters through the European Space Agency.

Rather than supporting the United States President's policy of research into space systems, should not Her Majesty's Government be urging the United States to have discussions with the Soviet Union to prevent a further escalation of the arms race in space?

The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that the United States is pursuing the opportunities for arms control in a whole range of forums, and we support that. But in this instance, where it is considering a research programme, it has made it clear that at this stage it does not see any means of verification.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of United Kingdom defence equipment expenditure is spent in the United Kingdom; and how many jobs are supported both directly and indirectly in British industry as a result of that expenditure.

In recent years national contracts placed with United Kingdom industry plus our share of collaborative projects have amounted to almost 95 per cent. of defence equipment expenditure. The remaining 5 per cent. is spent on contracts placed overseas. We estimate that for 1982–83, the latest year for which figures are available, this expenditure sustained about 225,000 jobs directly and a further 180,000 indirectly in British industry.

I thank my hon. Friend for those important and significant figures. Will he confirm that about 10,000 firms have contracts of some form with the Ministry of Defence? Is there not some obligation on those hon. Members who wish our defence expenditure to be in line with that of our NATO allies to explain to the British people the job losses that would result from such a policy?

The number of companies that my hon. Friend mentioned is right. He is also right to draw the attention of the House to the job losses that would follow from the type of defence policy that was enunciated by the Labour party during the election.

On defence expenditure and British industry, will the Minister consider persuading his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a statement in the House about the peregrinations of Mr. Levene, who is acting like an Avon lady knocking at the doors of British industry and hawking the royal dockyards? The Secretary of State should make a statement to the House rather than use the subterfuge on which he is presently embarking.

My right hon. Friend will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will judge the right moment to make any statement on the royal dockyards and Mr. Levene's involvement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that industrial arguments are important, but that basically, when the chips are down, the most important argument is that our armed forces should have the right kit?

Yes.

Will the Minister hazard a guess as to how many of the jobs that he has mentioned depend on European collaboration projects, such as the EH101 and MRCA? Does he agree that the future of our defence industry will depend largely on expanding that European collaboration even further?

The estimate we have given is that about 15 per cent. of the 95 per cent. of defence equipment expenditure goes on collaborative programmes. I think that that should give the hon. Gentleman the answer he wants.

What proportion of the content of Trident will be co-produced, excluding the submarines, which are the launching vehicles?

As my hon. Friend knows, 55 per cent. of the Trident programme will be produced in the United Kingdom. That includes the submarine, the warhead for the missile, the fire control system and various other advanced systems in the submarine.

Apparently, Mr. Levene is an adviser to the Secretary of State.

indicated assent.

I am glad to see that confirmed. Is there not a clear conflict of interest between Mr. Levene's position as chairman of a working party that is looking into the defence procurement and as a former chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association and managing director of a major arms manufacturing company?

No. The right hon. Gentleman should know that Mr. Levene is not a former chairman, but a deputy chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association. His position has been regularised, confirmed and agreed with the National Defence Industries Council, which met earlier this year. If that council sees no conflict of interest, it is not likely that there is one.

rose—

Order. I cannot allow a second question on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that there will be added security measures in those British ports to be visited by United States ships carrying sea-launched cruise missiles.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that there will be added security measures in those British ports to be visited by United States ships carrying sea-launched cruise missiles.

Appropriate security arrangements are made for the visits of foreign warships to United Kingdom ports.

Does the Minister accept that there is widespread anxiety about siting cruise missiles over much of southern England and the possibility that they will be placed in our territorial waters and will bring visiting American ships to our ports? Will the Government now pursue negotiations to put these weapons out of existence with as much enthusiasm as they have shown in spreading them throughout the whole of the British Isles and its seas?

I do not recognise the concern to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I would remind him that the zero option is on the table and can be picked up by the Soviet Union at any time. It was the Soviet Union that walked out of the INF negotiations.

Will the Minister explain the significance of the increase in the number of these visits? Would it not be far wiser for this country to rely on conventional defences? People would then be able to sleep more peacefully in their beds at night.

It is because the Government attach great importance to improving the capabilities of our conventional forces that we have substantially increased the defence budget in real terms, in stark contrast to the manifesto on which the Labour party fought the general election.

In a previous answer the Minister told me that sea-launched cruise missiles posed similar problems for verification as many existing dual capability weapons. Will he name one existing dual capability strategic missile?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the major programme that is taking place within the Soviet Union for developing long-range air-launched, sea-launched and ground-launched cruise missiles. Our view is that these long-range cruise missile systems will all be capable of carrying conventional warheads.

Is it envisaged that American ships carrying cruise missiles with nuclear warheads will call at British ports? If so, are those ships part of the United States strategic defences, or assigned to NATO?

The United States has made it clear that these missiles are part of the strategic deterrence. If requests are made to visit British ports, they will be dealt with in the normal way.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men have died in Northern Ireland each year since 1979 and in total since 1968.

The numbers of service men killed in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist action is as follows: 1979, 48; 1980, 17; 1981, 23; 1982, 28; 1983, 15; 1984, six to date. The total killed since 1968 is 514.

I know that my hon. Friend will agree that those are tragic figures. Bearing in mind the recently expressed concern of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about cross-border security, will my hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend have discussions with their counterparts in Dublin to try to initiate direct Army-to-Army communications across the border with a view to reducing the risk to our security forces on the border and the need for incursions across the border?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the tragic nature of the figures that I have given to the House.

Will the Minister be careful to take no notice whatsoever of what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney)?

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I am not necessarily inclined to agree with him.

Does my hon. Friend include in those figures the sacrifice made by the Ulster Defence Regiment? Will he pay a tribute to its part-time members, who live under special risk?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The 514 service men killed since 1968 are made up of 373 regular service men and 141 members of the UDR, of which a significant 117 were killed off duty. I definitely join him in expressing my tribute, and that of the whole House, to the bravery of the members of the UDR.

The whole House will regret the deaths of British service men in Northern Ireland, but has the Minister or his Department any reason to complain of lack of co-operation from the Irish Army or the Garda Siochana? Can he state categorically that no covert operations by any British forces under the control of his Department are taking place within the Republic of Ireland?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance sought in the second part of his question. Our view is that the wider co-operation, to which he referred, is satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current security situation at Greenham common.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current security situation at Greenham common.

On the security situation at Greenham common, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on 17 January, at columns 152–53. The training of the personnel stationed there in their various operational roles continues both on and off base.

Is it not evident that the peace women have not been defeated and that, judging by last night's events, they should be congratulated? Of course, there is another point. Which authorities, if any, have agreed to chariots of death being trundled around their counties, or is this an academic matter? Does local democracy not mean much today? It seems that the Government are not interested in democracy.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the off base training continues and will continue for as long as the cruise missiles are there.

As the Government's latest repressive little ploy to close down protest at Greenham has evidently failed and as deployments outside the base are still nocturnal and very brief, do the Government think that the United States will ever be able fully to deploy these missiles outside the base without imprisoning the entire peace movement in Britain?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that off base training has started well and, I am sure, will continue equally well.

Now that we have now got rid of most of the Greenham common women, due to the Department of Transport getting authority to take over the land, will my hon. Friend ensure that the security fences are made stronger to prevent the women getting through or jumping over them and creating problems within the base?

I shall not comment on the athleticism of the ladies. I assure my hon. Friend that the degree of security of the various fences increases as one gets closer to the actual ground-launched cruise missile site. In our view it would not be a cost-effective use of defence resources to create a massively expensive Berlin wall-type fence around the outer perimeter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that most reasonable people are delighted that the women are being removed? Does not the whole episode show what a wonderfully tolerant country this is?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I think that the treatment of the Greenham women by the civil authorities is the most eloquent testimony of the contrast between this country and the Soviet Union.

Is not the truth of the matter that it is the Americans who are the real decision-makers in Britain? Is it not a sad state of affairs, related to security at Greenham, that the Government have now allowed the Americans in the Pentagon to decide where Britain's bypasses and road widening schemes will be built so that they can get rid of these women?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government retain complete control over the execution of all highway works in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had about proposals for changes in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence strategy.

None. The United Kingdom remains fully committed to NATO's strategy of flexible response and forward defence.

Is that not rather surprising, as both the United States and the Soviet Union now agree that a nuclear first strike would in no way pre-empt the retaliatory capability of the opposition? Therefore, why does Britain still hang on to the idea that we must retain a first strike strategy?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is up to date. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any assumption by any Government that we needed to have a first strike capability. What we need— and what all Governments have ensured that we have—is a deterrent capability; and that has kept the peace for nearly 40 years.

In discussions with his counterparts in NATO, will my right hon. Friend stress the importance of individual countries in NATO, particularly Britain, retaining the capability to advance and improve the manufacture of essential items of defence equipment?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, because it enables me to stress the closeness of the political dialogue with my colleagues in Europe on this matter. We are all seeking to find a way of getting better value for money for our defence programmes. We perceive that co-operation is a route that we should follow, provided that no one expects any of us to sacrifice our immediate national interests.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing interest in improving conventional defence, arising out of concern over NATO's reliance on early first use of nuclear weapons in the event of conflict? Therefore, why does he not show more public awareness of the dramatic new possibilities that emerging technology is opening up for non-nuclear defence?

There is no way of showing our concern more than by the increase in real terms of nearly 25 per cent. in the defence budget under this Government, which has enabled us to afford the sorts of weapon systems to which the hon. Gentleman draws the attention of the House.

Would my hon. Friend care to speculate, in terms of jobs and security, on the appalling consequences of implementing Labour party policy, which appears to be in favour of canonising pacifist gipsies and dismantling NATO?

My last calculations, which were conducted in a pre-election climate, showed that to carry through the policies of the Labour manifesto would have eliminated the whole of the Royal Navy.

What consideration is the Secretary of State giving to the possible use of emerging technology as a means of reducing NATO's dependence on battlefield nuclear systems?

All these matters are central to the discussions that we are having about the development of new weapon systems. In recent years we have always been faced with the need to introduce the latest technological advance into our weapon systems, and that position is not changing.

Will the Secretary of State tell us something about the air-land battle concept, which apparently now finds favour with United States forces? Has that been discussed in NATO? Is air-land battle totally dependent on conventional weapons, or is it part of a mix of conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons?

All these new concepts, whether the air-land battle or the other concepts associated with emerging technologies, are the subject of discussions within NATO, but it would be fair to say that they have not yet been adopted as NATO strategy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning defence expenditure.

I frequently receive representations on several aspects of defence spending.

The spending of billions of pounds on nuclear weapons of death and destruction is to be deprecated while we are closing hospitals and slashing services for the sick and disabled. Is not the sum of £30 million which the Liverpool city council is rightly reclaiming from the Government to defend jobs and services——

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not relating his question to defence expenditure.

What I am saying is that it is peanuts compared with the £17,000 million spent on defence.

The first priority of every Government must be the defence of the nation. It is important that the hon. Gentleman should remind his constituents that in 1984–85 more money will be spent on health and personal social services than on defence, and that social security spending will be over twice that of the defence budget.

Would my right hon. Friend be able to provide a very small amount from the defence budget this summer to enable a representation to be made by ships of the Royal Navy at this year's 40th anniversary celebrations of the D-Day landings, especially bearing in mind that Her Majesty the Queen will be attending those celebrations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to say that we have considered that matter within the Ministry in terms of a general application to our armed services. I hope that I shall be able to respond favourably to his idea.

Has the Secretary of State evidence of savings in defence costs arising from transporting British troops by public transport, especially by the North sea ferries? Is he aware that the mass transportation of troops on civilian carriers is causing great distress to civilian passengers? Is he further aware that a large number of my constituents were terrorised by British Army troops on the Norland last Thursday?

Order. That is miles wide of the question.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the total defence expenditure of the Soviet Union and other Warsaw pact countries? How does it compare with United Kingdom spending?

My hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of extracting precise information from the accounts of the Soviet Union, but he will be fully aware that as a proportion of its national output it spends greatly in excess of what we spend.

Are not the costs of Trident estimated at £1 billion a year, which makes a total of £2 billion since the Secretary of State held office? Is not half of that cost totally outside his control and at the mercy either of international exchanges or American arms manufacturers? Is it not a fact that in a few years' time the Secretary of State will have to make further substantial cuts in conventional defences to pay for Trident?

I do not think that we shall need to do that. We expect the dollar spend to remain in the order of 45 per cent., and that Trident, as a percentage of the increased defence budget, will average 3 per cent., and in peak years, perhaps 6 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether more recruits are now joining the armed forces youth training scheme and its civilian counterpart.

Recruits are continuing to join the armed services youth training scheme, and last month some 50 trainees joined the scheme, making more than 650 in total.

I thank my hon. Friend for the encouragement in the second half of his reply. Bearing in mind the value of the armed forces YTS, has he fresh ideas to increase the numbers of those taking part?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest. We are continuing actively to promote schemes, through recruiting officers, newspaper articles, local radio and television. In many ways the youngsters on the schemes are themselves the best possible ambassadors.

How many of those on the armed services YTS might be recruited into the services permanently if they so wish?

Few of those on the armed services YTS have moved to our regular forces. Obviously, at the end of the year youngsters on the scheme must compete with civilians, but they have an advantage.

Is it not time for the Minister to admit that the scheme is a disastrous flop and scrap it?

It is certainly not a disaster. More than 3,000 youngsters applied, of whom 2,387 were rejected because they did not meet the high standards that we demand. About 660 youngsters are at present on the armed forces scheme and 170 are on the civilian scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the progress of the operational deployment of cruise missiles.

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 able to discuss specific details of further deliveries.

Is it not highly regrettable that the Soviets are still not prepared to return to the negotiating table to prevent the further deployment, either of these dreadful weapons or of SS20s? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the Soviets showed any good will, an agreement could be reached?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I said in answer to a previous question, the zero option remains on the table, as does President Reagan's offer of an agreement on equal numbers at a level below the present deployments. As for the SS20s, it is a matter of great regret that not only have the Soviets moved out of the INF negotiations, but that the deployment of SS20s, both those facing westwards and those facing eastwards, continues.

Is it not a fact that the deployment of these dreadful missiles is meeting such resistance from the British people that they have to be moved at night and only a few missiles have arrived here, although about 170 are due to come?

The British people well understand the importance of maintaining deterrence at all levels and they voted accordingly in the general election. As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about American service men, I am confident that the overwhelming majority of the British people recognise and welcome the work that they do in this country.

Is there any truth in the report in yesterday's Daily Express that those who are seeking to obstruct the deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom are getting free legal support from the so-called National Council for Civil Liberties? If so——

Order. That has nothing to do with the original question.

Why do the Government not admit that the deployment of cruise missiles has been a disaster? Militarily it has led to the deployment of other missiles— not SS20s—in eastern Europe;, diplomatically, it has led to the breakdown of all talks; politically, it has created tensions in western Europe that will have serious repercussions for NATO. Why do the Government not recognise reality and at least stop any further deployment?

The right hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that if the cruise deployment had not gone ahead— and deployment was a NATO decision, the foundations of which were laid during the Labour Government's administration—the message conveyed to the Soviet Union would have been that it could increase its ability to subject the whole of western Europe and the free world to nuclear blackmail through the massive build-up of SS20s and strategic nuclear missiles in which the Soviets are engaging.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of Jet Provost trainers for the Royal Air Force in accordance with air staff target 412.

No decision has yet been taken on the replacement of the Jet Provost. As the House knows, we have sought proposals for a possible replacement. On 16 March I gave the House details of the four aircraft now being considered.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulty in giving a full answer at this time, but will he at least say that the long-term future of the British aerospace industry is a very important factor which he will carefully bear in mind when reaching his decision?

I can safely say to my hon. Friend that the future of the British aerospace industry and the strength of our defence industrial base are always matters of great concern to my colleagues and myself. That will be taken very much into account when we make our decision.

Can the Minister give us an assurance that the staff target will be adhered to and that his Department will not be tempted into increasing the performance criteria, which would be unnecessary for the replacement of an aircraft used for training purposes?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to take the time of the House in debating the performance criteria. He knows what the staff target includes and obviously the RAF will want the best aircraft that meets that requirement.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Firecracker aircraft conforms with AST 412, that it is all-British and that it would be a scandal if British pilots were not trained on a British aircraft?

I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to comment in detail when we have not yet sent out the tender evaluation documents, but I note what he says.

Is the Minister aware that many people regard the decision to go for a turbo-prop as opposed to a turbo-fan as a detrimental step that will set back the training of British pilots? Will the Minister tell the House, before he reaches a decision, about the tie-ups between the companies named for the four project planes, the set-offs to other countries and guarantees of other markets for the British project?

When the hon. Gentleman talks about the advantages of a turbo-fan over a turbo-prop, he will be aware that in choosing the turbo-prop we recognise that possibly seven additional Hawk aeroplanes will be needed because of changes in the training curriculum. With regard to set-offs and other markets, the hon. Gentleman should table a written question on the matter, or I shall gladly write to him, whichever he prefers.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government will re-assess the United Kingdom strategy on chemical and biological weapons.

The United Kingdom, together with its allies, is committed to achieving a verifiable comprehensive ban on chemical weapons at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. The United Kingdom, like the Soviet Union and the United States, is also bound by the 1972 biological weapons convention, which bans development, possession and stockpiling of these weapons.

As it is arguable that the proliferation of chemical weapons would increase the possibility of a war involving chemical weapons, and bearing in mind our support for the Government's policy of negotiating for reduction in such weapons, does my right hon. Friend believe that an offensive capability is needed in the United Kingdom as well as in the United States?

I am aware of the potential threat from Soviet stockpiles of those weapons, but I believe that the Government's priority is right in seeking comprehensive and verifiable arms controls, to which our energy is deployed.

To what extent does the current non-weapon research at Porton involve the production of toxic agents for testing purposes?

We are totally restricted to defensive capabilities, to ensure that we have the ability to protect our soldiers or members of the other armed services in the event of attack.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that were it not for the work done at Porton Down, in which the British are leading the world in protection against chemical and biological weapons, we would not be in such a strong position to settle the problem in world terms?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. We cannot ignore the substantial Soviet offensive capability. It is right that we should review our defensive capabilities in the face of that.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition support the Government in seeking a proper and effective worldwide ban on the use of chemical and biological weapons? Is he further aware that we would support him wholeheartedly in not giving way to pressures from Conservative Back Benchers or senior officers of the armed services who urge that a chemical capability should be vested in Her Majesty's armed forces?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but he must be aware that my hon. Friends and members of the armed services, to whom he referred, must consider the possibility that the Soviets may have very large stockpiles of offensive weapons based in forward positions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that appropriate defensive arrangements are in place to enable Her Majesty's Government forces to withstand a major attack by chemical weapons.

A substantial investment has been made over many years in providing the armed forces with defensive protection against chemical attack. We shall continue to keep our defensive measures under review in the light of that threat.

If the offensive arrangements are satisfactory and this country is committed to a verifiable ban on chemical and biological weapons, and we have no stocks in any case, can the Secretary of State explain to the House the point of retaining the right to retaliate under the Geneva protocol?

If the hon. Gentleman heard the answer that I gave earlier he would know that we constantly keep our defensive capability under review. That must be our responsibility.

What representations, if any, have the Government made to the Soviet Union about the build-up of chemical weapons, which it is using in Afghanistan and other parts of the middle east?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, he will be encouraged by the efforts that my right hon. and learned Friend is making to pursue arms control in this critical area.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the question that I asked earlier about air-land battle? Does it envisage the use of chemical and nuclear weapons in addition to conventional ones?

The right hon. Gentleman will remember the answer that I gave. That is not NATO policy. It is a matter of discussion in the NATO Alliance and until we reach conclusions it would be inappropriate for me to give firm decisions on behalf of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the implementation of his plans to expand the Territorial Army.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made on 26 March.

As some of the new units are to be recruited in areas of high unemployment, is this merely a part-time job creation scheme? If it is really necessary for the defence of the nation, is the enemy external or internal? Will the Secretary of State give us the assurance which he failed to give a couple of weeks ago on the Floor of the House to the effect that under no circumstances will the Territorial Army be used to deal with the potential civil unrest which the Government are provoking by their policies of confrontation?

The hon. Gentleman is as aware as anyone else that the Government have no intention of changing any of the existing procedures in this matter.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and met the Amir of Bahrain on his arrival for a state visit. On my return I sent to the Civil Commissioner in Port Stanley a message expressing the Government's deepest sympathy at the tragic loss of life and injury sustained in the fire at Port Stanley hospital earlier today. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to attend a state banquet for the Amir of Bahrain at Windsor castle.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that she will have widespread support for her robust support for the police in their difficult task of ensuring that people who want to go to their place of work can do so unmolested?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the police have overwhelming support in the country and among those miners who have been able to go to their place of work because of the careful attitude of the police in this matter.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, within 12 months, it is possible that all miners over 50 years of age will have lost their jobs? Have the Government any plans to encourage alternative industry in those mining areas, or does she intend that those young miners should never work again?

In so far as the mines are in special development areas or areas in which there is special development assistance, that assistance will apply. In so far as other grants for the start of small businesses or enterprise allowances are available, they also will apply. Might I point out that when miners over 55 have to retire the terms for them are, I believe, more generous than have been provided by any previous Government.

The Prime Minister told Sir Robin Day last night that she wanted a go-getter society. As we now have more than 1 million 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed in Britain, can she tell them where they can go and what they can get?

If the right hon. Gentleman had listened a bit more carefully he might have learnt a little more. I said that we need an enterprising society—no Government can succeed without the men and women of enterprise.

Goverments cannot provide the men and women of initiative, but they can prevent the men and women of initiative. As 23 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds are without jobs, will she tell us what she will do to enable them to use their initiative, vitality, intelligence and talents? What will she do instead of give the smug sermons that have now entirely taken the place of economic policy?

If the right hon. Gentleman puts the two parts of his questions together, he will see that the Government have encouraged the men of enterprise by reducing many of the controls and by levying much less direct taxation on enterprise. Indeed, if we had the Labour tax regime, we would now be paying £3·5 billion more in income tax. As far as the young people are concerned. we have provided the best training scheme ever, and that, together with the enterprise and training schemes, is producing the results which the right hon. Gentleman refuses to recognise, but which are there.

Mr. Yeo.

Could the right hon. Lady live on £25 a week? How much is that banquet tonight costing?

Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that if he does that again he will have to leave.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if individual civil servants are to be free to decide in respect of which actions and information they obey the Official Secrets Act, and in respect of which matters they flout that Act, the business of Government would rapidly become completely unworkable.

I agree with my hon. Friend. No Government can carry on except with the total trust of the Civil Service, and I believe that we have that total trust except in very rare individual cases.

Is the Prime Minister making any representation today to the United States Government about their dangerous activity in mining the ports of Nicaragua?

We have previously made it very clear to the United States Government that we are against mining the ports in Nicaragua because, of course, it is very dangerous to international traffic on the high seas.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 April.

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

In the interests of the safety of British seafarers, would the Prime Minister consider co-operating with the French in removing the mines laid in Nicaraguan waters?

We have not the resources out there to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend, in expressing the sympathy of all of us for those who were killed in the fire in the Falkland Islands hospital, recall that she visited that hospital herself and saw the conditions there? Will she further recall that, more than a year ago, a report was made condemning the fire safety procedures in that hospital and that British troops were moved out of it some weeks ago because of fire hazard? Will she do all that she can to encourage the Falkland Islands Government to replace that hospital as soon as possible, in the interests of the civilian population, especially the old people who were in it?

A new hospital is planned. I am afraid that, of necessity, it will take some time to build. We shall do all that we can to speed up the building and, in the meantime, to provide other alternative facilities.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the future of the National Economic Development Council.

I regret that the TUC has chosen to forgo the benefits to its membership of participation in the council. We have no intention, however, of taking hasty decisions, especially since the work of the economic development committees has not been affected.

Would my right hon. Friend care to remind the TUC of Clem Attlee's maxim, "Never walk out because you will only have to walk back"? While the TUC is sulking in its tent, will she and the Chancellor consider how the work of NEDC can be improved and made more useful, for example by studying which are the services and industries in which Britain must be competitive in the 1990s, and how to achieve this?

I very much endorse the views of my hon. Friend. As he knows, the TUC walked out at the very time when a review of the industries of the 1990s was being undertaken for the purposes that my hon. Friend deduces—a review which the TUC had enthusiastically endorsed. I hope that it will soon come back to take part in it.

Modesto Collados, the new Minister of Industry in Chile, said last week that Chile can live——

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman may have the wrong question. The question is concerned with NEDC.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 April.

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

I understand that on television last night the Prime Minister said that she answers for what she does. In view of that remark, will she answer for when her public and private interests may have overlapped by telling the House when she learnt of her son's interest in Cementation, how much he received as a fee for that, and what he was doing in the Gulf at the time of her state visit to Oman?

I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave last Thursday.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very sad that Miss Zola Budd should have to seek citizenship of another country in order to exercise her talents, and that she and her Government should be congratulated on striking a blow for freedom in sport by enabling that young lady to have at least an opportunity to demonstrating her abilities at the Olympic games?

Whether or not Miss Zola Budd has that opportunity is a matter not for me but for those who select the Olympic runners. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary acted very quickly in her case to give her an opportunity, should others so decide.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 April.

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

Under the regime established by the Prime Minister in these matters, why are Ministers not subject to the same strict rules as apply to civil servants in respect of conflicts of interest involving members of their families?

I have already answered questions on this matter—[Interruption.] I do not think that the rules differ from what they have always been.

Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to tell the House something of the nature of the reply that the Government have recently made to the proposals put forward by the Government of the Argentine?

A reply has been sent. Initially we sent a message to the Argentine. It replied to us. We have now replied to its message, but for the time being that reply is confidential.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 10 April.

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

Can my right hon. Friend prescribe any early cure for the sad political laryngitis that continues to prevent the Opposition Front Bench from condemning the loutish militant picketing—[Interruption.]

Order. We dealt with that matter last week. The Prime Minister cannot answer for the Opposition.

Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the unemployed that she will not allow any cuts in the public employment service that diminish the chances of the unemployed being offered a job, training or even a place on a scheme for the unemployed?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady is getting at. If she is talking about jobcentres, I should point out that the number of jobcentre outlets was increased in the recent statement.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 April.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall being a sponsor of the private funding of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, which included in its promotional literature the statement that the hospital would provide for the treatment of women by women? If so, why does she not force the DHSS to honour that pledge?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to when it is necessary to have male consultants on duty. I believe that the position has been fully explained to the hon. Gentleman by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health. It is necessary to have that arrangement to keep the main purpose of the hospital going.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in their desperation to save the GLC members of the Labour party are presently organising a petition and are so enthusiastic about it that they are even signing up 11-yearold children, such as my daughter?

We have made our policy on the GLC very clear, and the paving Bill will be introduced very shortly.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 April.

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

What plans do the Government have for the revitalisation of areas that will be devastated by the closure of coal mines?

Coal miners in special development and development ares are eligible for the many grants available. Where help is needed, small business or enterprise allowances are available. We have no plans at the moment to increase the number of enterprise zones.

As my right hon. Friend has shown great sympathy for the people of Afghanistan, who have been persecuted by the Soviets, does she agree that it is outrageous that the Common Market should have increased its exports of cheap, subsidised food to Russia by 600 per cent. since 1979? Is there really nothing that we can do about that outrageous financing of the Russian defence budget?

As my hon. Friend is aware, these matters are decided by a majority vote and therefore we are not able to affect the outcome. My hon. Friend is also aware that we have voted against such goods being heavily subsidised.