asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will be in a position to announce the result of the general review of the Army's initial training organisation.

The results will be made public over a period of some years. I expect some initial results to be announced before the end of this year.

When two Irish cavalry regiments were moved to this side of the water, did they not lose much of their Irish character and composition? Would not the proposal to transfer the training of the Royal Irish Rangers from Ballymena discourage Irish recruitment and encourage terrorists and others who want the troops out?

The point made by my hon. Friend has been made by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 12 March, we will consider carefully the representations that have been made on the matter.

The Opposition — certainly the official Opposition—regard the raising of regiments in Ireland as an anachronism anyway. Can the Minister confirm that as a result of Major-General Groom's proposal there will be no breaking of the normal regimental and county traditions of the British regiments of the line, which is one of the strengths of the British Army in comparison with many others?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the regimental structure, I can tell him that there are no proposals to alter that. I regret his earlier comment about Irish regiments being an anachronism. They have played, and still play, a very important role in the British Army's dispositions.

Is it not a fact that soldiers from Ireland whose homes have been north or south of the border have made a glorious contribution to the traditions of many fine British regiments and of the British Army as a whole? Will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider the idea of bringing the Royal Irish Rangers depot to Great Britain, because they rightly belong in Northern Ireland?

I assure my hon. Friend that we will consider the representations that have been made I wholeheartedly endorse the earlier part of his comments.

Will the Minister acknowledge that if there is a problem about the use of "Irish", Ulster has a noble tradition within the Rifles as well and we would be happy if, under the review, the regiment was so called?

I shall not trespass on the question of regimental names, which, in my brief experience in my present past, I have found to be the single most controversial feature of the many aspects of service life.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States of America testing programme for the ground-launched cruise missile has included a sequential launch of four missiles from a single transporter erector launcher.

I understand that in addition to extensive sequential launched simulations in both laboratory and field environments, the United States ground-launched cruise missile test programme has included an actual sequential launch test involving two missiles.

Is the Minister aware that the idea of a sequence of two is absurd? As there have been faults with more than 1,000 air-launched cruise missiles, is he aware that it is absurd to bring missiles into the heart of this country when they have not even been properly tested in ideal testing conditions?

I cannot imagine what the hon. Gentleman finds absurd about a sequential launch of two missiles. That seems a perfectly sensible test to have made when they are mounted in groups of four. The flight test programme of the ground-launched cruise missiles has, generally speaking, been thoroughly satisfactory.

Is not the difference between a free and an enslaved group of societies starkly illustrated by the way in which the NATO countries individually debate, vote on and decide these matters, whereas the countries of the Soviet bloc do as they are told?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and the events of the next 35 minutes or so will not be reproduced in Moscow.

Given that such tests might take place from Greenham common, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why British soldiers who guard the perimeter of Greenham common are in grotty little corrugated huts, like nightwatchmen, while the American soldiers inside are in—

Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady has read the Order Paper.

rose—

Order. If the hon. Lady reads the question she will see that it is concerned with launches from single transporter erector launchers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I referred to the possibility of such tests taking place from Greenham common, which surely brought my supplementary question into order.

I shall not argue with the hon. Lady about that, but will permit the Minister to answer her.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, may I finish my question?

Very well.

Might the conditions in which British soldiers are operating at Greenham common explain their misbehaviour towards the women who are trying to protest against—

Order. That is an abuse of Question Time.

There will be no flight testing from Greenham common.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' SS4, SS5 and SS20 missiles targeted on western Europe.

As the recently published "Statement on the Defence Estimates" describes, there are now 243 SS20s and 224 SS4s targeted on western Europe. The SS5s have now been withdrawn. Each SS20 missile has three warheads.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm, to get this whole issue into perspective, that NATO will withdraw five times as many nuclear weapons as will be deployed in the ground-launched cruise missile and Pershing II programmes, and that there has been no equivalent response from the USSR, which in the last five and a half years has tripled the number of SS missiles that it has targeted on western Europe?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because there has been a significant and relentless increase in the number of SS20s deployed, facing both east and west. I can confirm that the NATO Alliance has, since 1980, taken decisions to remove nearly 2,500 nuclear warheads from Europe, bringing the total at the end of that removal period to the lowest for 20 years.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the production and deployment of additional nuclear weapons, both by the Soviet Union and the United States, should be deplored? Will he comment on the strategy behind the decision of the US Government to manufacture 4,000 air-launched and 4,000 sea-launched cruise missiles in addition to those cruise missiles which are to be deployed on land?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the US is seeking every avenue to discuss these matters with the Soviet Union. The USSR, having nearly completed its deployment of these intermediate range weapons, walked out of the negotiating forum which could have led to discussions to achieve very much the end which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I do not see how I can be expected to blame both sides equally.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures which he has given justify to the full the deployment in this country of cruise missiles and, similarly, give full justification for our proceeding with the Trident programme?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. As everyone knows, we did everything that we reasonably could to avoid the deployment of cruise missiles in this country. We spent four years, having warned the Soviet Union, seeking meaningful negotiations which would have enabled it to withdraw its weapons systems and avoid any equivalent systems on our side.

In view of the continued SS20 deployment and the forward deployment of the SS21, what steps do the Government believe should be taken to get the Soviet Union to return to the Geneva negotiating table?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman has followed with the same despair as the Government feel the attempts by a range of statesmen internationally to persuade the Soviet Union to indulge in meaningful negotiations. Every endeavour to persuade the Soviet Union to talk is being made, but those endeavours are being made entirely on a one-way basis and one can detect no reciprocal approach.

Is it not true that what matters is not the Soviet overture but the fact that now, for the first time, Europe has a chance of shooting back if it ever becomes necessary, and therefore avoiding world war 3?

I know that my hon. Friend shares the Government's view that the essence of our deployment is deterrence. We believe that as long as we have a capability that ensures that the Soviets are certain that they could never win from an attack, they will never make such an attack. They have nothing to fear from the West. There is no way in which our alliance is an aggressive one.

As it is part of the Government's case, as I understand it, that cruise missiles have had to be deployed in Britain because of or in retaliation against the SS20s, and as, apparently, the Soviet Union is now deploying other missiles in retaliation against our cruise missiles, will the Secretary of State confirm that NATO or the Government have no intention of deploying even more missiles of any kind in retaliation against the Soviet missiles?

There are no NATO plans of which the House is not aware for the deployment of further weapons systems, but it is important to point out that the Soviet announcement that it is to replace some of its forward deployed nuclear weapons systems and intends to carry that through clearly shows that the Soviet Union already possesses the weapons to do so. I believe that the Soviet Union would have proceeded to do that regardless of what we did.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he intends to take to ensure greater control of expenditure within his Department.

In recent years expenditure has been contained within the defence cash limit. In the light of various studies conducted within the Department in the past two or three years, and after close consultation with industry, we have significantly improved our central monitoring and management of cash flow. The carry forward arrangements for Government Departments announced last July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were also very helpful. But there is always room for improvement in the field of expenditure control; and in the 1984 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" which I published last week I announced the introduction in my Department of executive and staff responsibility budgets, as well as my determination to secure greater cost-effectiveness in defence procurement and supply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite those measures, his Department is regarded by much outside public opinion as the most profligate and wasteful Department within the Government? Is he further aware that when that waste is exposed by newspapers the Department sends police officers to the newspaper offices, unannounced, who scrounge around in those offices trying to find out who has leaked documents which reveal the extensive and massive cover-up in the Department of its extravagance and waste?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware that any activities conducted by the police are entirely a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I cannot believe that it is now the Labour party's doctrine that we should encourage the leaking of confidential Government documents. [Interruption.] I add to the generality of the hon. Gentleman's attack on the Ministry of Defence the information that during a period of about seven years the Ministry had a final cash limit of about £63·6 billion, and the total overspend was about £8 million. That is remarkable cash control.

Given that my right hon. Friend runs a Ministry with a manpower budget of £5,215 million, employing more than 500,000 civilians and service men, what manpower savings in percentage terms is he looking for to match the 47,000 reduction in manpower since 1979 and to meet his role in curbing Government spending?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in these matters. We have published figures for the reduction in manpower in the Ministry of Defence, but they include a significant element attributable to the privatisation of the royal ordnance factories. We shall constantly review what else we can add to that figure, but I should not want to publish targets in advance.

Is it not a fact that the Government's concern about the damage done by leaks is more about political embarrassment than about national security? Is it not about time that the Government had a clearly defined policy and that it was not based on saving the face of the Minister, for example with regard to the leaks on the White Paper in the fortnight preceding publication?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise that there is no way in which a Government can conduct their business meaningfully if everything is leaked at the discretion of civil servants working in the Department. No Government would tolerate such a situation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his Department's expenditure can be attributed to the cost of defending the Falkland Islands.

Much of the running cost of the forces based on the Falkland Islands would be incurred wherever they were stationed. The extra cost attributable to the Falklands garrison, including capital works and equipment, will represent around 2·5 per cent. of the defence budget for 1984–85.

Notwithstanding that, is there not a danger that our defence spending on the Falkland Islands will distort the defence budget, even to a slight extent, and impede our ability to achieve the much-needed objective of strengthening our non-nuclear defence capability in other parts of the world?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which enables me to repeat the fact that the cost of the Falklands budget has been added to the budget of the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, the distortion to which he referred will not take place.

What are we to think of a Government who, according to The Sunday Times, spend £3 million a day or more on 1,800 people in the Falkland Islands, yet have no money to help 1,800 men who will be declared redundant over the next two years, as will be announced this afternoon in the statement on British Leyland—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should direct his question to matters relating to the Falkland Islands.

If half the money spent on the Falkland Islands had been given, for example, in overseas aid, allowing countries such as Nigeria to buy trucks and other commodities—

Order. I call Mr. Tim Eggar.

to ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the reorganisation of his Department and the introduction of responsibility budgets.

rose—

Answer.

Answer.

Order. I call the Minister.

I refer my hon. Friend to the 1984 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which I presented to the House last week. Chapter 2 of the statement outlines my proposals for reorganisation, which are currently the subject of a period of discussion and consultation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this question No. 6, or what?

I think that the Minister is answering a supplementary question on No. 5.

I should like to know the Secretary of State's answer.

Order. I thought that the Minister was answering the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the Falkland Islands.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had answered No. 5, and I was answering No. 6.

Order. We seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a twist. [Interruption.] Order. This takes time. I call Mr. Tim Eggar. Is he present? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I call Mr. Hal Miller.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take the point of order afterwards.

rose—

Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order afterwards. If he raises it now it will take time out of questions, and I cannot extend the time for them.

What a farce.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for increasing the fighting capabilities and the deterrent effect of all three services.

I refer my hon. Friend to chapter four of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984" (Cmnd. 9227) published last week.

Will my hon. Friend welcome the response by our European partners in NATO to the United States initiative on emerging technology, which offers significant opportunities not only for increasing our fighting capabilities but for industrial sales if the defence budget can be weighted in favour of equipment rather than recurrent costs?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We welcome the opportunities presented by emerging technologies and we intend to see that British industry gets more than its share of the opportunities presented.

Is the Minister aware that the defence estimates to which he refers received a bad press, on the whole, last week? How does he respond to the judgment in The Daily Telegraph a week ago today that, whatever economies his right hon. Friend secures, the future appears to hold only the promise of further defence reviews and the erosion of our defence capabilities? In particular, how does he respond to the conclusion of the The Daily Telegraph that his right hon. Friend has done nothing to confront that prospect?

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I do not agree with the conclusion of The Daily Telegraph. Nor do I agree that the White Paper had a bad press. It was well received in all quarters, apart from some rather idiosyncratic leading articles about it in certain journals.

Is it not the case that our fighting capabilities more and more depend on communications and technology in space? Does my hon. Friend agree that we are witnessing a race between the Soviet Union and the United States to put weapons into space? Has not the time arrived when the two sides should come to the table to seek ways to prevent this developing?

I am sure that what my hon. Friend says will be noted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is responsible for this subject. As to space development in military terms, I assure my hon. Friend and the House that, as far as our budget allows, we shall keep a close watch on these developments.

What likely effect will the Trident programme proposed by the Government have on our non-nuclear defence capability?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper, where that question is answered in detail.

What contribution would greater harmonisation of weapons and equipment within NATO make to the efficiency of our own forces?

It is difficult to give a precise answer to that. Some standardisation and inter-operability is desirable, but, as my hon. Friend knows from his experience, other factors — usually of a political or industrial nature—have to be coped with.

Who was responsible for deciding that we would spend £3 million a day on the Falkland Islands, but was not prepared to spend a similar amount to save the jobs and livelihoods of an equivalent number of people in Scotland?

I thought it would be clear that the decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers was taken by the Cabinet.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the terms of reference of the National Defence Industries Council.

The terms of reference of the National Defence Industries Council are, first, to provide a focus for regular consultation between the Ministry of Defence and industry on questions of defence supply and procurement of mutual concern, and, secondly, to define areas of profitable consultation and study and the appropriate machinery to be used in each case.

Given the terms of reference and the membership of the council, will not Mr. Peter Levene's position give rise to a conflict of interest? Being a member of the council, and then hawking round private industry essential national assets such as the dockyards, he will be in a position to advise the Secretary of State, while at the same time being directly associated with the armaments industry, which will have a direct interest in acquiring these vital national assets. Will the Minister come clean on the position of Mr. Peter Levene, the adviser to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Levene is not a member of the National Defence Industries Council. He attended the last meeting at the special invitation of my right hon. Friend. It has been clearly laid down that there will be no conflict of interest between Mr. Levene's commercial interest and any service or studies that he might carry out for the Ministry.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the NDIC has a tradition of being a somewhat cosy club? My hon. Friend's Department is encouraging competition. Is he seeking an input from members of the NDIC so that realism may prevail? For example, will research and development and the difference between high technology and buying boots and shoes be rigorously observed in its studies?

The NDIC does not study the matters to which my hon. Friend refers. It has considered other matters such as ratios and the impact of competition on defence industries. That fully occupies it for the present.

Reverting to the subject of Mr. Peter Levene and United Scientific Holdings, does the Minister realise not that there is great disquiet among the smaller defence contractors because Mr. Levene may have access to costs and prices that will put their companies at a disadvantage when tendering against United Scientific Holdings? Is it not quite scandalous and immoral that that gentleman, who is the chairman of a major defence manufacturing company, will, in less than six months, return to his company with all that information in his head, which can then be used to the benefit of his company?

That is a wholly unwarranted slur on Mr. Levene. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that, far from the disquiet that he alleges—I should be glad to have evidence of that end if he wishes to furnish me with it—Mr. Levene happens to be the deputy chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association—which is the trade body for the small companies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Disregarding the unpleasant attack on an individual who cannot defend himself, will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the terms of reference of the NDIC enable it to advise him whether it would be better to restyle the Jet Provost or to run a competition for a replacement? What advice has he received from the NDIC?

Such a matter would not lie within the usual competence of the NDIC.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the status of the United States operational concept for the ground-launched cruise missile based in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the status of the United States operational concept for the ground-launched cruise missile based in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the status of the United States operational concept for ground-launched cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom.

The operational concept for ground-launched cruise missiles remains as described in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1981".

Does the Minister seriously believe that the Government can control and contain a nuclear war in Europe, as outlined in a Ministry of Defence publication which states that the use of cruise would be considered even to persuade Russian withdrawal at the eleventh hour? Will it be used in that context?

The whole substance of the Government's policy rests on the principle of deterrence. As has been said many times, the cruise missiles deployed in this country are subject to firing with the consent of the British Prime Minister.

Will the Minister confirm the statement by the United States chief of staff that cruise launchers are capable of autonomous action? In the early stage of a crisis, is it not dangerous to put that capability in the hands of American officers?

We are wholly satisfied with the command and control arrangements for cruise missiles.

Is it not true that the United States chief of staff has confirmed that, at American direction, the theatre commanders can launch cruise missiles? If so, does that not make complete nonsense of any political control by NATO?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole question of the control of cruise missiles is subject to firm political control throughout NATO.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to condemn the Left-wing propaganda coming from the Opposition Benches in the form of a suggestion that the cruise missile has first-strike capability? Will he tell the House that, in order to have such a capability, the cruise missile would have to be sudden, massive and accurate, whereas at the moment it is just accurate?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I never cease to wonder at the extent of the preoccupation of the Labour party with the weapons of our allies, which are there to defend us, and its almost total silence on the weapons of our opponents, which threaten us.

Is it not a fact that despite the mean, spiteful, distorted, unfair and unjust remarks of Labour Members, they would be the first to wish to hide under the United States' umbrella if they were threatened?

I agree with my hon. Friend that our American allies deserve vastly better than they get from the Labour party.

Is the Minister aware that, according to a recent statement by General Meyer in the United States senatorial hearings in Washington, the operational concept for launching ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing II calls for a proportion of these to be launched quickly on the sole authority of the United States theatre commander? How can the Minister square that with his belief that we do not need a dual key because the agreement of the British Government is needed before a weapon can be launched?

We are wholly satisfied that the launch of cruise missiles would be under political control.

The hon. Gentleman has repeated himself, but he has not answered the question. Is he saying that, as far as Britain is concerned, General Meyer was wrong and the operational commander does not have discretion to fire the missiles?

As far as ground-launched cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom are concerned, the position on command and control is exactly as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers decided to adopt any new strategies for the deep counter-attack of Warsaw pact countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers decided to adopt any new strategies for the deep counter-attack of Warsaw pact countries.

No, Sir. NATO's strategy remains that of flexible response and forward defence against aggression. NATO Defence Ministers reaffirmed last week in Brussels that this is the only effective deterrent to Soviet military power.

Will the Secretary of State ask the United States to withdraw its new airland battle strategy for the European forces, which is based on the idea that a nuclear war is winnable?

The airland battle strategy is a matter for the United States armed services. It is for them to determine the policies which they put forward within their own defence arrangements. It is not for me to claim that those policies are in some way a NATO doctrine.

Is it not true that the idea of deep strike attacks, envisaging the use of nuclear and chemical weapons as well as conventional ones, is another dangerous escalation which increases the likelihood of a pre-emptive strike? Once those weapons are used, full-scale nuclear war will not be containable. Does the Secretary of State not understand that, especially as NATO has not approved the United States airland battle strategy?

I am aware that in the document about the airland battle strategy reference is made to the use of chemical warfare techniques. What is the United States supposed to do when the Soviety Union has a massive chemical capability? Should the United States ignore that capability?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is now required from Her Majesty's Government is a more reflective statement on how they should seek to influence strategic thinking in NATO?

My hon. Friend asks a most important question, but he will also be aware that it is a prime purpose of the Government to seek to influence NATO strategy, and not to put forward a range of proposals in public which might have the effect of disrupting it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents want an answer to a simple question? Is he prepared to use nuclear weapons first?

The Government have made it absolutely clear that they will not use any weapons first.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely foolish for NATO not to have an effective capability to interdict the battlefield and to prevent the follow-on forces that are available to the Soviet Union; as it and the Warsaw pact have massive reserves and interior lines of communication?

My hon. Friend is right. All Governments since the war have pursued precisely that policy.

Can the right hon. Gentleman make the matter absolutely clear? I thought he said that airland battle was not part of NATO strategy and that it might be a matter for the United States army and air force. In the event of a war breaking out in Europe, is he saying that there would be no airland battle strategy, or would the United States go its own way and use that strategy anyway?

No. I confirm that the airland battle document is not agreed NATO strategy. There are discussions in NATO about a range of options, but that document has not been agreed in NATO.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the standard of present flight simulators used in pilot training.

Yes, although in this fast developing field there is always room for improvement and we are progressively replacing and updating our simulators.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of recent technical developments in computer development imagery within British industry for flight simulators? Is he certain that these latest developments are available for his Department to assess?

The straight answer is yes, I am aware of those developments. My Department keeps constantly in touch with such developments to ensure that the latest forms of simulation are available to our armed forces.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the combat simulator made by British Aerospace in the Warton division and its significance in combat simulation worldwide? When does he expect the Royal Air Force to buy a combat simulator to encourage further sales abroad?

I had the opportunity to inspect the simulator to which my hon. Friend referred as recently as 10 days ago. The RAF is considering such an acquisition.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future deployment of manpower within the armed forces.

I refer my hon. Friend to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984", which was published on 14 May. As I made clear in the statement, all three services are undertaking a series of studies to transfer manpower from the support areas to the front line. My objective in the area of service manpower, as in all other areas of defence expenditure, is to achieve the most efficient teeth-to-tail ratio.

In view of the need to curb public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend continue with his manpower redeployment plans to achieve a cost-effective means of keeping within cash limits, irrespective of the vested inter-service interests, which always come out on these occasions?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall pursue that direction of policy. An important feature of the recent White paper is that about 4,000 soldiers are being moved from support areas to the front line, that there will be an enhancement of perhaps 20 per cent. in our destroyer and frigate fleet and that there will be up to 15 per cent. more fighting aircraft with existing manpower in the RAF.

In regard to the tail, is the Secretary of State examining the support services of the BAOR, especially the large civilian element there, and thinking of bringing any of them back to the United Kingdom?

I can confirm that we are examining comprehensively all of the support areas. That does not mean that we have plans in any particular area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether United States forces in Europe have operated according to airland battle strategy while on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether United States forces in Europe have operated according to airland battle strategy while on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether United States forces in Europe have operated according to airland battle strategy while on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises.

No. When participating in NATO exercises, all NATO forces operate in accordance with NATO operational plans, which are not based on United States army airland battle doctrine.

Does the Minister dispute the evidence given by Secretary of State Caspar Weinberger to the United States Senate that on 1 August last year, in the Reforger 82 exercise, United States forces in Europe operated according to airland battle strategy?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that NATO exercises are conducted in terms of NATO's own plans and not US army national plans.

Is it not time that Defence Ministers admitted that they have handed over British sovereignty to those who wish to practise scarcely veiled first-strike war games that are based on the strategies of the American civil war, so beloved by Caspar Weinberger?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. American defence policy is as defensive as the rest of NATO.

Has the Minister ever visited the toy department at Selfridges to look at its nuclear war games, and in particular at one called Apocalypse, which costs £6·99, but which is currently out of stock? Would not the hon. Gentleman do better to play with that silly game instead of running round the world inciting it to its own destruction by the use of nuclear weapons and the pursuit of a battle strategy that will wipe out the entire planet? Will he see sense, go back to his childhood and purchase one of those silly little children's games?

The hon. Gentleman is wholly misinformed. It is a fundamental part of this Government's policy and that of NATO that defence rests on deterrence.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

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.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the first use of nuclear weapons invites retaliation and destruction? Will she give the House an assurance that she cannot envisage any situation in which she would authorise the first use of such weapons, even if a conventional war broke out? If she cannot give that assurance, will she bear in mind the overwhelming opinion among experts on both sides of the iron curtain that an initial nuclear exchange would lead to an all-out exchange, which would inevitably lead to the destruction of civilisation?

There is an agreement between NATO countries that they will use their weapons only in defence. That is much more valuable than the views to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the events that took place yesterday in Wales, when a group of miners tried to start working again in a pit that had been closed? The miners were swamped by the pickets who arrived. There was a very meagre police presence. To encourage future attempts by miners to return to work, will she and the Home Secretary ensure that such attempts by miners to return to work and to do what they want are not thwarted in that way by militant picketing?

We were all concerned about the incident to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand that yesterday a crowd of people who had picketed Cynheidre colliery gathered threateningly outside the home of a miner. The police were called, but when they arrived the crowd had dispersed. The police are actively investigating the incident with a view to prosecuting anyone who can be identified as having committed an offence. This morning there were about 300 pickets, and some 250 police officers were deployed. I believe that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the police on the general way in which they carry out their duties.

The right hon. Lady will be aware of the dispirited comments made publicly yesterday by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the serious doubts that must now exist about his position in that office. What action will she take to ensure that the necessary authority and confidence are restored to that crucial office?

My right hon. Friend is a very effective Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and will continue to carry out his duties.

The right hon. Lady does not appear to understand the gravity of the doubts that exist in the wake of the statements that we heard yesterday. Does she comprehend that at this crucial time of discussions about new initiatives it is essential that the people of Northern Ireland, the Government in Ireland, the people of this country and indeed all concerned parties can depend on the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland enjoys the confidence of the Prime Minister and can exercise proper authority in office? Will she now answer the question? What does she intend to do to ensure that that necessary authority and confidence can be enjoyed over these crucial months?

My right hon. Friend is Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He does enjoy my confidence. The right hon. Gentleman is simply showing that he has great difficulty in finding a question to ask.

Mr. John Townend, Question No. 2.

rose—

Order. I am sorry. I must remind the Leader of the Opposition that I had already called the next question.

rose—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had two opportunities to ask questions and I had already called the next question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What is the point of order?

There is no office of state more serious in its effect or more grave in its importance than that of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister cannot treat the matter with such frivolity when people's lives and the future arrangements for Northern Ireland are clearly at stake.

I call Mr. John Townend.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 May.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more miners would like to return to work but are deterred by mass pickets, in breach of TUC recommendations? Is it not time that the National Coal Board showed the same courage and resolution as Mr. Eddie Shah and used the laws which the Government have introduced to protect the miners from violent mass picketing?

Resort to civil law is, as my hon. Friend has said, a matter for the National Coal Board to judge, but violence and intimidation are covered by the criminal law and that is a matter for the police. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained to the House last week the measures that the police are taking to combat the disgraceful intimidation that has been used against working miners. It is ironic that although trade unions were formed to protect their members from threats of intimidation, those who could stop these attempts at intimidation fail to do so and refuse to condemn them. In the meantime, the police continue to exercise their powers with regard to picketing to enable miners who wish to go to work to continue to do so.

As more and more jobs in manufacturing industry are lost because of a fall-off in export orders from Third world developing countries — the most recent tragedy being today's announcement about Bathgate—does the Prime Minister accept that there is a heavy responsibility on her at the economic summit to produce measures for a co-ordinated expansion of demand in the world economy and in particular to deal with the problem of debt in Third world developing countries? Is she aware that many people will look to her for an example of leadership at the summit?

To expand demand in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be to create a new round of world inflation and thus to go into a new world recession. We shall, of course, be discussing the problem of international debt. So far, however, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it has been handled well both by the world institutions and by the commercial banks.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the closure of Leyland at Bathgate in two years' time would be industrial sabotage? Does she recognise that to spend millions of pounds on social security benefits for families living round Bathgate, where male unemployment would rise to over 50 per cent., instead of investing in modern production facilities would be a criminal and vindictive attack on Scotland's industrial base? Is she aware that it would be resisted by Leyland workers and all Scottish people?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the problem is not of a lack of investment, but of a lack of markets. The Government greatly regret the need to close the Bathgate factory. British Leyland has already kept it going for a considerable time, past the point at which it ceased to be viable. Leyland Trucks' share of a reduced home market fell from 26 per cent. in 1975 to 15 per cent. last year. For Leyland Trucks to survive it was necessary to close down some production, to keep the most efficient production at home, but in other plants.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that throughout the world today a four-continents-based initiative was launched by President Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado and Julius Nyerere, and Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Andreas Papandreou through the enterprise of Parliamentarians for World Order? Will she wish that initiative well, as it is based on the twin ideas of finding common ground between the nuclear states, and safeguarding national security? It is probably the most imaginative move for peace in the past 25 years.

I read of that initiative only this morning. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government and the NATO Alliance wish to reduce their armaments, but must be able to do so in a multilateral way with others doing so at the same time. It must be done in a balanced way and be verifiable. Otherwise, security would be threatened instead of enhanced.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

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

How does the Prime Minister feel, having attempted to display to the world a caring mother's face and a preparedness to travel anywhere in the interests of her children, when she sees miners' children and families seeking sustenance from soup kitchens and charities? Is she aware of the repugnance felt by millions of people at her attempts to starve miners back to work? Is she not ashamed of herself, and does she agree that she has disgraced her motherhood? Will she consider joining a closed monastic order as quickly as possible to repent of her sins and reflect on her crimes against humanity?

At present 43 pits are working completely normally and 14 are working partially in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, Staffordshire and Derbyshire. More miners are working now than at the start of the strike. They are earning good wages at good pits, where there is good investment, and their families are flourishing. I trust that others will follow their example. [Interruption.] It is the fault of the hon. Gentleman and those who called them out on strike.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed how many of this man Scargill's associates in this country and overseas are avowed Communists, dedicated to doing all the damage they can to our society and economy? Does she agree that the country should judge the National Union of Mineworkers' conduct of the strike and reluctance to speak to the National Coal Board against that background?

The Coal Board vetoed that meeting.

We wanted it regardless. The Coal Board vetoed it.

I note what my hon. Friend said. I hope that there will be what is a regular six-monthly meeting between the NUM and the National Coal Board tomorrow at Hobart house. It is highly regrettable that those at the top of the NUM have not condemned and called off the intimidation to which my hon. Friend referred.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the collective losses of British Airways, British Rail and British Leyland totalled over £106 million in 1979, and that the collective profits last year were over £118 million? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that many people in this country believe that she should continue with her successful industrial policy, so relieving the burden on the British taxpayer?

The British taxpayer has contributed some £1 billion in the last few years to British Leyland. British Leyland is improving. It is vital that it should have efficient operations, and it was necessary to close Bathgate for that purpose. We regret that, but it is due to the lack of markets and not to the lack of investment or support from the British taxpayer.

Why did the Prime Minister encourage Mr. Ian MacGregor to veto the meeting that was proposed to be held tomorrow on the basis that he said it had to be held at Hobart house or nowhere else, when it is well know that the miners are not prepared to cross picket lines? [Interruption.] Is the Prime Minister further aware that the proposed meeting on pensions tomorrow had the venue changed in case there was trouble? Is there any sanity left in 10 Downing street or Hobart house?

There are some 50,000 miners working. They are working for themselves and for the good of their industry and their families. The meeting tomorrow is one of a regular six-monthly series of meetings.

The right hon. Lady vetoed it.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that Hobart house is not empty. There are many people working there. The regular six-monthly meeting will take place at Hobart house to discuss ordinary matters. The chairman of the National Coal Board will be there ready to take the meeting.

The right hon. Lady vetoed it.

Should there be a different meeting to discuss the dispute, without pre-conditions, that will take place on neutral ground.