asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in arrangements for basing United States Poseidon submarines at Holy loch.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in the arrangement for the basing of the United States Poseidon squadron at Holy loch.

No, Sir, but these arrangements are of course kept under review.

Will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that none of those Poseidon submarines will be either modified in any way or retro-fitted to carry Trident missiles, and then based at Holy loch or anywhere else in this country? What we want is a guarantee.

I know of no proposal to do so. If the Americans had any such proposal they would, of course, put it to us.

Does the Minister take any account of the fact that the majority of people in Scotland are strongly opposed to the deployment of nuclear weapons in Scotland? Can he give us an undertaking that the British authorities will be consulted if the Americans want to deploy Trident missiles at Holy loch? For that matter, will Parliament be consulted?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, American ballistic-missile-firing submarines have been based at Holy loch for some 20 years, and the conclusions of the British people on the matter were well expressed in 1979 and 1983.

Is not my right hon. Friend's last point a very cogent one? These arrangements have satisfied successive Governments of different colours, and they are to be regarded as satisfactory.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. I agree with him.

The American base at Holy loch is in closer proximity to a centre of population than would be permitted under American law for an American base in the United States. Is the Minister happy that that situation should exist in a British sovereign state?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the safety arrangements which apply to the Americans at Holy loch are the same as those which would apply in the United States. Those arrangements have endured well for 20 years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of people in this country support the NATO Alliance and the maintenance of adequate defences? Has he observed that of the 22 questions tabled by Labour Members for oral answer today, 19 are designed to cast doubt on our American ally or the adequacy of our nuclear forces? Does this not tell us more about the Labour party than about NATO?

My hon. Friend asks a most pertinent question. As I have said before, I am ceaselessly struck and disappointed by the fixation of the Opposition with the weapons of our allies, and their failure to take into account the threat posed by the weapons of the Warsaw pact.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about this matter, as he said that it was under review and yet, as I understood him, there are no proposals to install Trident missiles? What on earth is the review about? Why should the Government not start winding up the base as 360 Trident warheads and 160 cruise missiles are coming to Britain? Why do we need Holy loch as well?

I said that the basing arrangements were under review, as they always are in relation to operational needs. I also made it clear that the American Government have made no proposal to us to base Trident missiles at Holy loch.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had to revise the costs of Trident since the publication of the defence Estimates.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, since the publication of the defence Estimates, there has been any change in circumstances that require the revision of cost estimates for the Trident programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, since the publication of the defence Estimates, there has been any change in circumstances that requires the revision of cost estimates for the Trident programme.

The estimate, 'which I announced in March, of £8·729 million is that which, by convention, was used for this year's re-costing of the defence programme. The estimate will be reviewed in the context of the 1985 long-term costings and I will announce the revised figure to Parliament next spring. Since I made my announcement in March there have been movements in the assumptions in both directions.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the first report of the Defence Select Committee, which says at paragraph 41 that

"a more realistic Trident estimate is around £9,400 million"

"could negate what we have in mind to do"

A space-based anti-ballistic missile system is still very much a research project. Nobody knows whether it is technically achievable or whether it will enter service, and we cannot build a defence strategy on those hypotheses. I have read the views of the Select Committee. It took into account the changing exchange rates. That was a matter of fact, although one cannot know what the exchange rate will be on the next update or during the rest of the life of the Trident programme. I shall stick to the precedents when I revise the defence Estimates which I make available to the House.

When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Environment he forced local government always to have regard to the revenue consequences of any capital expenditure. Does he agree that the running costs of the Trident system might be about £120 million—similar to the estimates for Polaris—or will it be more? Does that not put the cost of Trident up to £12 billion?

The estimates that I have sought and given are the capital costs through the life of the Trident programme. There are associated running costs, but if the hon. Gentleman's figure is right, seen against the background of a defence budget of about £17 billion, it shows what an even better bargain it is than we thought.

Is the Secretary of State happy with the fact that only £4·6 million of the contracts on Trident will be awarded to British companies? What is he doing to ensure that 45 per cent. only of the contracts are allocated to firms in the United States?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have secured from the Americans an agreement that British companies will be free in many cases to tender for parts of the programme, which is 45 per cent. American procured. I must make the important caveat that, as this is an established and continuing programme, it is relatively difficult for outside contractors to break in to such an existing set of arrangements.

When considering the effect of Trident, if any, on the rest of the procurement budget, will my right hon. Friend give special attention to the European fighter aircraft, bearing in mind that about 50 technicians from the design department of British Aerospace have already left this year? They are anxious about Trident and would welcome my right hon. Friend's reassurance that it will not have an effect on the procurement programme.

I know of my hon. Friend's concern in these matters. That is why it is important to point out that the average cost of Trident is probably one sixth of the increase in the defence budget for which the Government have been responsible.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that much of the excitement about the cost of Trident that has been generated in some quarters is misplaced because, as a proportion of the defence budget, it is, if anything, less than the Tornado programme in its day?

My hon. Friend is right to make that important point. Perhaps an even more relevant example is the fact that the Labour party managed to modernise the existing Polaris system with the Chevaline process. The cost of Chevaline more than doubled in real terms during Labour's tenure of office, and Labour forgot to tell the House either of the programme or of the increased costs.

The Secretary of State will recall that in last week's defence debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said that while the unit costs of cruise missiles were lower, an independent deterrent based on cruise missiles and delivering the same number of warheads as Trident would prove more expensive. How can he expect the House to accept those figures when he will not say how many warheads Trident is planned to have?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not yet reached a decision on the number of warheads that Trident is to have. That is something to which the Government must address themselves, and they will. However, I wish that the party for which he speaks and the party associated with it would make up their minds about whether they want us to have an independent nuclear deterrent. If so, I wish they would say when they thought that a decision was necessary and then tell us what they would do in place of taking it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of their position on Trident, both the Labour Opposition and the alliance—or perhaps part of it—are being driven into the absurd position where they are the only people asking Britain to spend more on defence irrespective of our needs or resources vis-a-vis the Health Service or education, and irrespective of value for money?

If I understood my hon. Friend, I think that I must remind him that the principal Opposition party has passed a conference resolution threatening to reduce conventional defence expenditure by about a third.

Will the Secretary of State refer back to one of his earlier comments about the Select Committee, namely, that if the "star wars" concept takes place, and it very much looks as if it will, it will negate the need—indeed, the purpose—of Trident? When will we know, and when does the Secretary of State expect to know, at what point in the development of Trident he will have to come to a decision on whether to go ahead or negate it?

The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the Government have taken the decision to go ahead with the Trident programme. We are committed to that, we have expended money in furtherance of it, and we intend to see the policy through. He is perfectly correct to ask about the hypothetical circumstances relating to the Trident programme and the "star wars" concept. It is not possible for us to take certain decisions now on the hypothesis of certain developments which may or may not take place, and the timing of which we cannot possibly foresee.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to introduce a secondary surveillance radar facility at RAF Leuchars.

Yes. It is planned that a secondary surveillance radar will be operational at RAF Leuchars by 1988.

I thank my hon. Friend for that positive reply. Will he confirm that this is a recognition of the importance which Leuchars enjoys, first as the premier airfield in that part of the world, and, secondly, because it is so helpful to civilian aircraft, the number of which passing through that air space has more than trebled in the last 12 months? It is because of that help that Leuchars desperately needs this equipment.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Leuchars is an extremely important front-line air defence base. SSR will provide automatic identification and height information and will considerably facilitate the safety aspect associated with the very substantial increase in air traffic.

Will this surveillance system make it possible to establish whether low-flying military aircraft in the east of Scotland are breaking the regulations?

I am not aware that it will have that particular advantage.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of Trident acquisition.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in the strategy of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent forces as a result of Trident acquisition.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in the targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of the Trident question.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in the targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of the Trident acquisition.

No. As we made clear in the Open Government Document 80/23 "The Future United Kingdom Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Force", the British Government's concept of deterrence is concerned essentially with an ability to pose a potential threat to key aspects of Soviet state power. That concept will remain the basis of our approach when Trident enters service.

As Trident's accuracy makes it a first-strike weapon for use in fighting a nuclear war, and as United States policy has adjusted to meet that change in availability, should not the Secretary of State now admit that either our Government's policy has changed in the same way, or he has wasted the country's money?

The hon. Lady must be fully aware that Trident is a replacement for the Polaris system, which the Labour Government supported for many years.

Enhancement of the deterrent, not replacement.

The hon. Gentleman says that as though it were a condemnation. It is an enhancement because the Soviets have introduced a new generation of radar and ABM systems.

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the British public as a whole are far more worried about the prospect of nuclear warfare than they were a few years ago? As Polaris is not supposed to be a first-strike weapon because of the placing of the silos of the Soviet missiles, what faith can we have in the story that Trident will not be fully aimed? How are the Russians to know that? Does this not bring us nearer to the prospect of nuclear war?

I do not know whether the public are rightly or wrongly more concerned today. I know that they have always been concerned, and that is understandable. The one thing that I know about public opinion is that the public believe that the maintenance of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is an essential part of our defence strategy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are to purchase D5 missiles from the United States, with complete MIRV facilities? If we purchase them, will the missiles be with the 17-warhead capability, and if so, is it the Secretary of State's intention fully to utilise that capability?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have not yet taken the final decision about the procurement of the systems.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Trident 2D5, unlike Polaris, has the capability to destroy Soviet missiles in their silos? While that may not be the British Government's purpose, is not the fact that it has that capability enormously destabilising?

I wish that Labour Members, before telling us about the destabilising effect of our deterrent system, would spend more time concentrating on the threat that we face from the Soviet Union, with its continuing enhancement.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Japanese had had a nuclear deterrent such as Trident at the end of the second world war the Americans might not have dropped their atom bombs? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend further accept that it is a jolly good justification for our nuclear deterrent?

My hon. Friend raises a key point. We have had a nuclear deterrent in this country for nearly four decades, and we have lived in peace. The coincidence does not escape any independent observer of the scene.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no hon. Member has yet made a convincing case for an alternative to Trident which constitutes a credible independent nuclear deterrent?

That is why the Government took the decision that they did. I support what my hon. Friend has said.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the submarines based in Scotland, however efficient the targeting system, and however effective the warheads, could not, under any circumstances, knock out the SS20s?

The purpose of basing submarines in Scotland, along with a whole range of other decisions that we take about weapon systems, is to prevent a war breaking out, not to calculate the precise use of weapons that would be made in the event that it did.

Does the Secretary of State accept that any first use of Trident would be suicidal, both nationally and throughout the world? Will he give a clear commitment on behalf of the Government that there will be no first use of Trident and other British nuclear weapons?

I give precisely the same assurances as those which the last Labour Government gave when they were responsible for these matters. Everybody knows the consequences of the use of the weapon systems and their very existence is the single greatest guarantee of peace that we have.

Does the Secretary of State recall that he said to the Select Committee a few weeks ago that neither side would contemplate using nuclear weapons, on the basis of a rational judgment, because of their horrendous nature? If he accepts that he is a rational man, as I am sure he does, does that mean that he would not contemplate the use of Trident or any other nuclear weapon? If that is the case, what does that do to the Government's theory of deterrence?

I was going to say that I am as rational as the previous members of the Labour Government, but that is a pitfall into which I would rather not leap. No responsible Secretary of State for Defence would spell out in advance the hypothetical circumstances in which our deterrent would be put to use. The whole purpose of our weapon system is to deter, and in that it has been extraordinarily successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the sale of defence equipment to Norway.

The wide range of defence equipment manufactured in this country is generally available for sale to Norway, as to our other NATO Allies.

May I remind my hon. Friend that Britain is about to enter into its largest single contract—for the purchase of £20 million-worth of gas from Norway's Sleipner field? What steps are being taken to alert the manufacturers of British defence equipment, and what steps are being taken to assist them?

The manufacturers of British defence equipment are already fully aware of the opportunities for them in the sale to Norway. When the Secretary of State met his opposite number in Norway in February, he had conversations about the possibility of a memorandum of understanding being signed. My right hon. Friend said then that if suitable opportunities for collaboration could be defined it would be worth proceeding. So far no such opportunity has been ascertained.

The question of general defence sales to Norway, to other NATO Allies and elsewhere is fraught with political difficulty and enormous secrecy. Why is the Ministry not at least prepared to tell the House the value of the sales to particular nations, the extent to which they involve high technology and the two-way street involved in the sales? Without that information we do not know the effect of our sales elsewhere or the effect of our purchases. When one considers the ratio of United States purchases to United Kingdom purchases—whatever happened under the last Labour Government—are we not in enormous deficit against the United States, the most closed market for defence equipment in the world?

It is not true to say that we are in an enormous deficit with the United States. When the Conservative Government came to office in May 1979, the imbalance against us was 4:1. Today it is about 2:1 compared with the ratio for other European nations of about 9:1. One of the main reasons for a degree of confidentiality about such transactions is the will of the purchaser. Purchasers wish such details not to be widely publicised.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many all-British tenders have been received for the contract to supply the Royal Air Force with a new basic jet trainer.

None. Invitations to tender were only issued on 18 June.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he assure the House that when a decision is reached, all things being equal, the aircraft chosen for this all-important task will be that which provides most jobs for Britain and for people working in this country?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend and the House an assurance that such considerations will be among the most significant of the factors that we shall take into account when arriving at our decision.

Is the Minister aware that the test that my hon. Friends will apply to the placing of the contract for the RAF's new basic jet trainer will be the net British job content involved? Will the Minister be a little more sensitive, more protective and aggressive about home-based jobs when he comes to place the contract than he was when he placed the order for Harpoon?

I shall not weary the House by listing the occasions on which we have achieved deals which have been advantageous to British industry and British job content. British job content is one of the many important factors that will be weighed with all the others.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the choice should be made on the basis of providing the best aircraft to train the best pilots for the Royal Air Force and that it should not be tied to sales to or purchases by foreign countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that Firecracker, British designed and built, holds great hope for the future?

I agree that the fundamental question is whether the Royal Air Force receives the plane that will do the job that it requires. As the tender invitations only went out on 18 June, it would be dangerous to start particularising across the Floor of the House about precisely what percentage of which of the individual contenders is British.

Does the Minister agree that more British jobs will be provided if the award is given to the jet trainer most likely to gain the most sales to other countries?

That is another of the factors that we must take into account. Obviously, I am aware of what lies behind the right hon. Gentleman's question. We have great regard for the industrial capability of Short Brothers, following its success with the United States air force.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition will specifically look for an order on the British mainland that will meet the needs of the declining British aerospace industry and compensate for the lay-offs that have taken place? When will a decision be taken? To what extent will speculative agreements be taken into consideration, as opposed to positive orders on the table?

I said in my original reply that the invitation for tenders to be submitted went out on 18 June. It is our intention that tenders should be returned by about the middle of September. We hope that a decision will not be unnecessarily prolonged after that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest ground-launched cruise missile testing programme.

The overall flight testing of the ground-launched cruise missile has been satisfactory.

Does the newly created right hon. Gentleman seriously think that the British people will think that the programme has been satisfactory when it appears from reports in the United States that more than half the missiles fired have not worked properly? Can he confirm that, although there are four tubes on each launcher, the best that the United States has managed so far is two missiles fired from each launcher? As Ministers have told us about previous American weapons installed in Britain, can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether there has been any previous example of so untested a weapon being introduced in Britain by the United States?

The hon. Gentleman's figures are not accurate. Of the 10 flight tests of ground-launched cruise missile, only one was classed as a failure.

The women at Greenham common have made it clear that they intend to disrupt the testing programme. Can my right hon. Friend estimate the numbers now protesting at Greenham common and confirm that under no circumstances will they succeed in disrupting the testing programme?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are considering the flight testing programme of the cruise missiles. As he referred to the off-base training programme, I am delighted to confirm that it has been carried out satisfactorily and that it has not been impeded by demonstrators.

Have the tests on cruise missiles shown that they can be used in the way outlined in the MOD document handed out at Greenham common—as an alternative to surrender or all-out nuclear war?

The operational concept of cruise missiles is to add to deterrence and to provide an offset against the SS20 capability. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take into account the fact that before the NATO INF deployment decision was taken, there were 243 SS20 warheads targeted against us, but that figure had risen to 729 by the time that NATO deployment had actually began. Those are the facts about which we should hear more from Opposition Members.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that when Members of Parliament were given an opportunity to visit Greenham common, Labour Members chose to posture outside the gates rather than take full opportunity to visit the base? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who visited the base and took the opportunity to study the system were impressed by it, and especially by the safeguards built into it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am certain that that visit was beneficial for those who took part in it in full and that it confirmed to my hon. Friends that the safety arrangements at Greenham common were undoubtedly satisfactory.

If the Netherlands Government finally reach a firm conclusion not to accept their 48 successfully tested cruise missiles, will the remaining four basing nations be expected to take a larger share of cruise missiles so as to maintain the original NATO concept of 572 warheads?

The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. We hope that it will remain hypothetical and that the Dutch Government will be able to adhere to the original NATO deployment programme.

If the figures of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) are not accurate, the right hon. Gentleman must have in his brief the accurate figures. May the House have them?

As I recall, I have already given details of the flight testing arrangements and have said that, of the 10 flight tests, only one has been classified by the Americans as a failure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many military bases there are in the United Kingdom at which the senior military officer is an American.

American service personnel at military bases in the United Kingdom are all under the command of an American officer. At most bases there is also a RAF commander acting in a liaison role but not subordinate to the American commander.

Whether or not there is an American commander, will the Minister say which bases house nuclear weapons? In particular, will he, in view of the fears of my constituents, say whether there are nuclear weapons or missiles stored at Burtonwood, Warrington? Will he take action to stop the heavy military manoeuvres by American helicopters at night, because they are disturbing the peace of the neighbourhood?

The policy of the American Government is exactly the same as that of Her Majesty's Government in this matter; we do not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons in individual places.

Is it not still the case, as it was formerly, that there are no American bases in the United Kingdom but that certain British bases are placed at the disposal of our American allies and that the British flag continues to fly over them?

My hon. Friend has described the position accurately. The arrangements which exist today concerning the use of British facilities by Americans in this country are exactly the same as those which have existed for many years, including under previous Labour Governments. They are arrangements that have commanded the support of those Governments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) misled the House when he said that Labour Members did not go inside the cruise missile base at Greenham common? Not only did we go inside, but we learnt——

Order. Supplementary questions must be related to the main question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only did we learn that the base is under the command of a United States officer, but that he alone can decide whether to fire a cruise missile? Is he further aware that the nonsense of claiming that there is dual control was smashed out of existence by those of us who had an opportunity to talk to the American military forces?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully, because the position is quite different from that which he suggests. No cruise missile can be fired in this country without the consent of the British Prime Minister.

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of moves in the American Congress which could result in a reduced commitment of American service personnel to the defence of western Europe? While that may be welcome to Labour Members, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would represent a significant shift in the balance of advantage from West to East and would represent a major coup for Soviet propaganda?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that extremely important point. We welcome the fact that the Congress resolution to which he referred, which called for a reduction in United States forces in Europe, was not passed. The spirit and tenor of many of the questions posed by Opposition Members can hardly encourage our American allies to continue their current level of presence in this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what connection military personnel or bases have been used in connection with the current mining dispute?

As has been said on many occasions, there is no involvement by military personnel in support of the civil authorities in that dispute.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that within the NATO Alliance, the great shield of the West, the nationality of the individual commander is immaterial? There are surely plenty of British commanders on the mainland of Europe.

My hon. Friend is right. The position whereby American forces in the United Kingdom are under American command is the same as that of British forces in Germany, who are under British command.

Is it possible at any American base in the United Kingdom for British liaison officers to veto American operations?

American operations will be carried out under overall NATO directions, because American forces in the United Kingdom are working within the NATO command structure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future size of the United Kingdom's financial commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Defence expenditure will show further real growth in 1985–86, when it will be about one fifth higher than in 1978–79. Some 95 per cent. is devoted directly or indirectly to Alliance tasks.

Does the Secretary of State accept that unless service pay increases are held down to 2·5 per cent. in 1986–87 there will be no real growth in defence expenditure? Will he hold down service pay to that extent, or will he withdraw other NATO commitments?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's calculations. Service pay is only part of the defence budget and within the budget there are cash assumptions to take us from one public expenditure period to another. There is a need in this area, as in all others, to recognise the overall requirement for constraint.

Has my right hon. Friend had any conversations with the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, who requested that Britain, along with the rest of the membership of NATO, should increase its defence budget by more than 3 per cent?

I am fully aware of the views of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, who, in the light of the growing Soviet threat, is urging that larger resources be made available for defence. I think that he will be the first to recognise the real contribution that the Government have made, having increased the defence commitment by £3,000 million per year since we were elected.

What representations has the Secretary of State made to our NATO allies about taking cognisance of the fact that in years to come Trident will consume 30 per cent. of the Navy's procurement budget and is therefore likely to denude naval resources of Britain's real and specialised role within NATO for its frigates and other ships?

Rather than misrepresent the position to our NATO allies I would tell them the truth, which is that throughout this decade real expenditure within the Navy budget will be higher than it was when the Government came to power, despite the fact that we have also to pay for Trident.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that today Lord Carrington should be taking up his position as the head of NATO? Does he agree further that NATO should begin a period of introspection and examine its own structures? Should we not insist that there should be a thorough overhaul of the institution and its strategy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It gives me the greatest possible pleasure to support his warm tribute to Lord Carrington. I am sure that the House will recognise that no more admirable or qualified person could have been found to take on the job of Secretary General of NATO. It is necessary to keep under review the strategies and procedures of the NATO Alliance, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the Alliance has helped to deliver the longest period of peace in contemporary European history.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of small firms which (a) tendered for and (b) received contracts for amounts less than £10,000 in 1983–84.

Ministry of Defence policy is not to discriminate between large and small firms as such. Consequently, at this stage, there is no requirement to distinguish between the size of firms which tender for, or win, MOD contracts. In 1982–83 MOD headquarters placed some 30,000 contracts for values less than £10,000 and small firms secured a significant proportion of these. The figures for 1983–84 are still being evaluated but are not likely to be very much different.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the MOD could still do more to help small businesses, especially by instructing main contractors to devote more of their subcontracts to smaller businesses?

We want very much to encourage more competition among subcontractors. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the excellent booklet entitled "Selling to the MOD". About 35,000 copies of that booklet have been distributed. This has produced a substantial and marked increase in inquiries.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the greatest dangers to small contractors and subcontractors is a mergers trend, such as the GEC-British Aerospace merger, within the defence industry, and that the more mergers there are among larger firms, the more smaller firms will be gobbled up?

The biggest danger to the defence budget would be the Labour party's plans to reduce defence expenditure, which would affect defence contractors. We want to encourage small firms to compete. At the same time, we must have an eye to the success of our large firms in the international market.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Binbrook.

After the phasing-out of Lightning air defence aircraft in 1987–88 RAF Binbrook will remain an RAF station, although its precise role has yet to be determined.

Will my hon. Friend comment on speculation that the Tornado air defence variant will be based at RAF Leuchars and Coningsby and that the hangars at RAF Binbrook have not been hardened for that reason? Is he satisfied with the position whereby Binbrook closes as a fighter base, leaving this country with only six front-line squadrons defending it?

It is correct to say that the Tornado F2 will go to RAF Leuchars in due course. Binbrook will remain an RAF station, but we are examining all the options. I cannot at this stage say how active the station will be.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is attending a meeting of the European Council at Fontainebleau.

When will the Government admit that their anti-trade union laws have proved to be completely unworkable? Do they intend to arrest all the miners and then all the railwaymen? Is it not a fact that the inexorable march towards a general strike, provoked by the Government, is now relentlessly under way? When London comes to a complete standstill tomorrow, will wiser counsels prevail in the Conservative party than those of a dictatorial Prime Minister and the ineffable and wretched Mr. MacGregor, who have provoked this action between them? Can we expect the Government to come to the negotiating table, announce that the pit closures will stop and discuss with the miners what will be done?

It is highly irresponsible to speak in terms of a general strike. Those who do so invite the suspicion that there are elements which would like to use industrial action to secure against the Government what the ballot box failed to secure. It is highly damaging to make the kind of personal and inflammatory remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the chairman of the NCB. That does nothing to assist the process of conciliation. The offer still exists for the National Union of Mineworkers to get around the negotiating table with the NCB, and the sooner the talks are resumed, the better.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public concern at the news this morning that an unauthorised person—a vet—last month took part in a major surgical operation on a constituent of mine?—[Interruption.]

Order. This is a bit of a change.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps as a matter of urgency to allay public fear so that such illegal and dangerous practices will never happen again?

The matter raised by my hon. Friend is clearly of immediate and topical constituency interest, but it touches on an issue of wider general concern. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will seek to allay the anxieties to which my hon. Friend has referred.

What does the deputy Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] have to say about the widespread condemnation among the 29 countries attending the East-West environmental conference in Munich of the wholly negative attitude adopted by the British Government at that conference? Does he agree with the Canadian Minister that the cost of inaction is even higher?

To comment briefly on the right hon. Gentleman's initial premise, I am not deputy Prime Minister [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I say that merely to put the record straight. I leave it to the memoir writers to interpret the meaning behind the right hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that millions saw on their television screens a constituent of mine on a miners' picket line being viciously truncheoned by a policeman, although he was not resisting arrest? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the loss of faith in British justice among my constituents and many others at the response of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make a statement and to condemn police brutality?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a police complaints procedure to which his constituent can have recourse—[Interruption.] All those who jeer at that retort are part of a wider movement seeking to undermine the authority and effectiveness of the police in this country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ordinary maintenance grant for students for 1983–84 is only 92 per cent. of the value of the grant in 1980, which was low enough already? Does he agree that that is disgraceful and typical of the Government's meanness? If the Government do not wish to discourage further education, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee an uprating of those grants for 1984–85?

I can give no guarantee in the terms sought by the right hon. Gentleman but, as we have a grant system rather than the loan system which is operated in many parts of the Western world, I believe that, broadly speaking, higher education in this country gets a jolly good deal.

Has my right hon. Friend read the report today that a shadow Minister recently had to be recalled to Standing Committee duties in the House over the public address system at Royal Ascot? If that is true, is it not a rather encouraging explanation for Labour absenteeism?

I was not aware of that report, but I am prepared to be generous and agree with my hon. Friend.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he agreed in Cabinet to the changes in supplementary benefit arrangements made last week he consented to the removal of £86 million from some of the very poorest people in the land, including a large number of old people who depend on long-supplementary benefit?

We are convinced that, taken in its broader sense, the package provides a very good deal and underwrites the Government's performance, which shows that during the lifetime of the Government scales of payment for social security recipients have risen by 81 per cent. compared with a rise in prices of 71 per cent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question that I asked? Does he realise that because of the changes nearly 2 million very poor people are losing from 50p to £1 a week on incomes that can be as low as £36 a week? If he did not know what he was consenting to, will he give an undertaking to work to change it? If he did consent to it, is he not disgusted with himself?

No, although I was conscious that the available scale margin to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was introduced by a Labour Government in 1966 and increased in 1968. The decisions that have been taken by my right hon. Friend are perfectly explicable in that context.

Will my right hon. Friend take advantage of his opportunity to convey questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, in connection with her negotiating position at Fontainebleau, stress that the whole of British coastal shipping waters are open to coastal ships from other EEC countries, whereas five of our major EEC partners preclude all British coastal ships from trading on their coastlines, which is quite contrary to the treaty of Rome? Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister use that as a negotiating card when she is accused of being anti-European?

That is exactly the sort of question that can be legitimately directed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she returns from Fontainebleau. That is a very good reason for my not anticipating her answer.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Can the Lord Privy Seal justify the Government's intention to stop dole payments to unemployed Olympic athletes when an hon. Member will be participating in the Olympic games on a full parliamentary salary?

I must say at once that I am unaware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I shall not seek to answer his question. I shall refer it to the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is intolerable, and perhaps ironic, that the travelling public will be inconvenienced yet again by a 24-hour rail strike in support of the miners, many of whom, like my constituents, are not on strike but at work? Will he remind the chairman of British Rail that this sort of secondary industrial action is unlawful and that there is a remedy, which he should be encouraged to seek today?

I am sure that many will have noted what my hon. Friend said concerning secondary picketing and his advice to the chairman of British Rail.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the description of the Prime Minister in The Guardian as a politician whose tact and diplomacy has all the finesse——

Order. I know that the hon. Lady is relatively new to the House, but she must ask the Lord Privy Seal a question for which there is ministerial responsibility.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Prime Minister that she should use some real tact and diplomacy rather than, as yesterday's description of her in The Guardian states, using all the tact and diplomacy of a soccer hooligan on the terraces of Europe? Does he agree that the Prime Minister will return from Fontainebleau with only half a cake and not the budget rebate that she has consistently promised the House in the past few months?

As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be answering those very questions in a much more authoritative fashion than I could ever dare essay. Meanwhile, I totally reject the hon. Lady's description of my right hon. Friend and, above all, deplore the rather lacklustre language employed by The Guardian, which is usually of a much higher literary standard.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

I have been asked to reply.

How does my right hon. Friend react to the ugly scenes that we saw on television last night, when two working miners were savaged by the mob? How is it that in this 15-week catalogue of violence, intimidation and criminality, not one single picket has been sent to prison? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Government have yet sufficiently taken on the Fascist Mafia of Arthur Scargill?

It is for those who use the rhetoric of working class unity and fraternity to excuse the disgraceful scenes that were portrayed on television last night of the treatment of those two miners.

Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the fact that the miners will not succumb to the Government in the dispute and that their determination grows day by day? If the Prime Minister is not convinced of that, I invite her to come to my constituency and to see it at first hand. Does the Leader of the House believe that the Government have no responsibility in any circumstances for the hardship being caused to miner's wives and their families?

I have no reason to doubt that the social security arrangements are being applied equitably in the mining districts as elsewhere.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent elections to the NUM in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, where those who want to work have kicked out of office those who want to strike, including the brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Does that not show that the so-called tribute of the people has failed to follow the Churchillian maxim that one should trust the people?

I am sure that we make our own judgments and inferences, as my hon. Friend has. One thing is clear. The central feature of the dispute is that it divides mining community from mining community. That is the explanation of the frustrated bitterness shown by Arthur Scargill and his supporters.

Is the Minister aware that at the Bolsover election five miners who have been on strike out of a committee of eight were re-elected, so they have a majority? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the secretary at Welbeck colliery, who has been on strike from day one, has also been re-elected? As for my brother, he has been nominated by the Nottinghamshire NUM as the Labour party parliamentary candidate for the Sherwood constituency. That constituency is currently held by a Tory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and after the next election there will be two Skinners here instead of one.

I am not sure whether my immediate reaction should be that I do not know whether that pleases the Leader of the Opposition, but, my God, it pleases me. My second thought is that I should like to pay respect to this family contribution to ensure that Sherwood remains a Tory seat.