asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the security of the Greenham common site and other military installations; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the security situation at Greenham common air base; and if he will make a statement.

Security at all military installations is under constant review. The high security areas within defence establishments, including that at RAF Greenham common, are very comprehensively protected.

How were two women able to live undetected inside the perimeter fence for almost a week recently? Why do the police seem to stand by while so-called peace women cut the chain link fencing and thereby gain access to the base, putting the defence of Britain last and their own eccentric behaviour first?

The evidence on the ground does not substantiate the claims of the ladies in question that they spent a week in that particular place. A distinction needs to be drawn between the protection of outer perimeters and of the high security areas. Although we divert as much as we reasonably can by way of finance and manpower to the protection of the outer perimeter fences, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that the key issue at Greenham common is the proper protection of the high security area, and, as I said, that has been comprehensively protected.

Does the Minister realise that the security of our entire nation, never mind Greenham common air base, is at stake, that these horrific weapons are a menace to everybody, and that the majority of British people want to be rid of them? Does he further realise that his viewpoint on this matter is even worse than the security at Greenham common? The right hon. Gentleman has not yet realised just how deeply the British people feel about these horrific weapons.

I do not know which general election the hon. Gentleman fought last year, but it does not seem to have been the one that was fought by my right hon. and hon. Friends, when the British people gave a decisive mandate in favour of the Government's policies.

Will my right hon. Friend emphasise again, for the benefit of the House, the difference between the outer and inner perimeters? Will he confirm that no one has penetrated anywhere near those parts of the base which really matter?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The point that he makes is correct. I can also confirm that there has been no penetration of the high security area of Greenham common.

Has it been made clear to the American forces, in the terms of the Secretary of State's recent written reply to me, that their powers in relation to trespassers in these bases do not exceed those of the ordinary citizen under the common law and that their liabilities correspond?

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the responsibility for informing American service men of their obligations under United Kingdom law rests with the American commander, and I am sure that they have been fully informed of the requirements and limitations of United Kingdom legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that cruise missiles will continue to be deployed on practice runs outside the base at Greenham common, thereby emphasising that Greenham common is nothing more than a bomb-proof garage and underlining the pointlessness of the protest?

I can confirm that off-base training deployment will continue. That is the Government's firm policy.

As the missiles are currently deployed outside the base, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are consulted in advance of the training exercises? As no live missiles are being carried, will the Minister give an assurance that the British Government would be able to veto any decision to take live missiles out of Greenham common?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made it clear on many occasions that no live missiles will be deployed for training purposes. I assure him that the off-base training deployment takes place after the closest consultation and liaison with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an apposite word in the English language to describe those who deliberately undermine the safety and security of the nation of which they are citizens? Can he recall what it is?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I fully take the point that he makes.

Is it not a fact that at the end of the day the British Government's writ does not run in Greenham common and that ultimate security and control over the firing of these missiles lie with the United States Government? Is the Minister aware that recently the chief of staff of the United States army, General Meyer, admitted in a Congressional Committee hearing that missiles can at times of tenson and emergency be fired by the theatre commander? How does that square with the Government's attempt to pretend that they have a veto over the firing of the cruise missiles?

That reference to General Meyer has been made before. I have read his statement carefully, and I have found that it is not open to the construction that the right hon. Gentleman has put upon it. The United Kingdom's position is exactly as has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that no cruise missiles in this country can be fired or launched without her consent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected annual running costs of Trident.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected annual running costs of Trident.

The running costs of the Trident force must be to some extent speculative at this time, but as a percentage of the defence budget it is unlikely to be significantly different from the present cost of Polaris; that is, some 1·5 per cent. each year.

Is it not a fact that the cost of Trident increases by about £25 million for every 1 cent fall of the pound against the dollar? As the Government have admitted that they have no control over the way in which the dollar reacts in the world economy, why are they prepared to write a blank cheque for nuclear missiles to provide Americans with jobs, but are not prepared to write a blank cheque to sustain Britain's coal reserves?

The answer, briefly, is that the Government believe that it is necessary for the United Kingdom to have an ultimate deterrent. Short of facing the Soviet Union with the hon. Gentleman, I can think of no other more effective ultimate deterrent.

Does the Secretary of State agree that Trident is a complete waste of money? Had Trident been in service two years ago during the Falklands dispute, it would not have deterred Galtieri, but it would have made it impossible to send a task force to the south Atlantic. The money to be spent on Trident will be at the expense of the surface fleet. Will the Government change their mind and cancel this useless project?

No, the Government will not change their mind. We expect the spending on the conventional navy to be higher in each year of this decade than it was when the Government were first elected.

Is it not essential that the Government should carry through their plan to acquire Trident for two reasons: first, that we cannot be sure that Polaris will be effective in penetrating hostile defences of the sort that are likely to be deployed in the mid 1990s; and, secondly, that there is no alternative to Trident which will be effective and cost less money?

My right hon. Friend is, of course, perfectly correct. The one question on which the Labour party does not agree is the scale of the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

Does not the possession of Trident assume its unilateral use without the agreement of the United States? If it does not mean that, why have Trident?

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that it is a totally independent British system. The whole purpose of the possession of such a system is deterrence, not use.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Trident programme is on time and will not be affected by internal wranglings at British Shipbuilders?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I had noted comments of the kind that might have prompted her question. I believe that we shall carry through the Trident programme as we have planned.

When contemplating spending thousands of millions of pounds on Trident, even if the money is spent over several years, does not the Secretary of State's conscience bother him when he looks at the television programmes about the starving children in the Third world?

My conscience would bother me a great deal more if I looked at the threat of the Soviet Union and did not ensure that this country was adequatedly defended.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the running costs of the present strategic nuclear force are under 0·1 per cent. of our gross national product? Is that not a remarkably low price to pay for the preservation of peace? Will not exactly the same arguments apply to Trident?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had not seen that statistic. I am sure that it is soundly based. I believe the House realises that the running costs of Trident are likely to be broadly equivalent to the costs that were appropriate to the running of Polaris. As the Labour Government ran Polaris for such a significant time and and in secret modernised it with the Chevaline process, I had assumed that, on this issue at least, we would be able to find commmon accord with the Labour Party.

Why is the Secretary of State so coy about the costs of Trident? Does he agree that, if the Trident programme were abandoned, the National Health Service could meet the real needs of the people, we could have houses for those who are in need of housing and give decent pensions to the people?

We would have a Government who would sell out the country's basic interests for each cheap promise that the Labour party is capable of designing.

Is the Secretary of State saying that the comments by a former chairman of Vickers—that there is difficulty in finding the sort of skilled staff needed for the Trident programme and that the dismissal of a former managing director of Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness is a disaster for the Trident programme—are incorrect? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is possible to bring in the Trident programme on the time scale that was originally suggested?

Of course, I have seen the comments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He will be aware that the responsibility for the management of that yard must lie with British Shipbuilders. It is for British Shipbuilders to answer the detailed questions and to be sure that it has the management necessary to carry out the decisions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we understand why he is frightened to put a figure on the running costs of Trident.? Will he confirm that the running and support costs of Polaris come to about £600 million per year? Will he also confirm that it is reasonable to infer that the costs for Trident will certainly not be less than £600 million?

If I had to confirm the figures in which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to believe and upon which he presumably bases his totally indefensible defence policies, I might feel some concern; but, as the right hon. Gentleman's figures are much closer to 300 per cent. of the actual costs, they show how wildly inaccurate he is.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the arrangements for policy examination and co-ordination by members of the service chiefs of staff committees in respect of defence policy aspects affecting the three services.

The changes described in the White Paper "The Central Organisation for Defence", are designed, among other things, to improve the Ministry's ability to reach the best defence-wide solutions. The chiefs of staff committee will continue to be the forum in which the chief of defence staff, as principal military adviser to the Government, seeks the advice of the service chiefs of staff. They will have full access to the advice of the new, unified defence staff; and they will have sufficient single-service staff to enable them to direct the work of their own services, as chairmen of the service executive committees.

My right hon. Friend made a full statement about this matter last week, and we now have the White Paper, but does he agree that the brouhaha about the change has been somewhat overdone? As he said, there is no net reduction in the role of the chiefs of staff. As they will have complete access to the new unified defence policy appraisal committee, will that not strengthen rather than weaken their intrinsic role?

Any change brings uncertainty in advance. The chiefs of staff have a responsibility to point out their anxieties. I admire them for doing that. I take my hon. Friend's point that, under the new arrangements for the Ministry of Defence, if anything, they will have an enhanced opportunity to influence defence policy. That will emerge as the new system shakes down.

If the Secretary of State is correct and the role of the service chiefs is enhanced, why have they been making all this row?

As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), there is always uncertainty in advance of change. It is perfectly legitimate for those who are the custodians of the single services to express any reservations that they may have. I must point out, however, that the chiefs of staff have now given a clear commitment that they will work for the system, and they believe that it is workable.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet Lord Carrington to discuss the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's area of operations.

No, Sir. There are no plans to enlarge the NATO area of operations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the continuing threats to Western interests in the Gulf region require NATO to review its policy east of Suez instead of leaving it to the involvement of some member states?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he raises an important point. In the conduct of foreign affairs, the reality is that NATO will not act as a unified body in areas which are not immediately linked to its geographic base.

In any discussions with Lord Carrington, will the Secretary of State discuss our position in relation to the British flag fleet and whether we should have to call on NATO partners to sustain and support us across the Atlantic in times of emergency? Additionally, will he say what strain support for the Falklands puts on our naval resources?

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the costs of the Falklands war were added to the defence budget. The Falklands losses are being replaced out of additional finance provided by the Exchequer.

By taxpayers.

Of course, by taxpayers—taxpayers who elected this Government to govern the country and rejected Opposition policies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the establishment of NATO has proved to be a monument to peacekeeping, the time has come for a fundamental overhaul of the entire management structure. of NATO, which has not been studied for some time?

My hon. Friend touches on an important issue. I hope that the new Secretary-General, Lord Carrington, will have an opportunity to consider these matters and to put them to the appropriate political forums that control NATO on behalf of the Alliance.

We welcome the Secretary of State's further commitment to the fact that NATO will have no out-of-area role as such. Will he comment upon statements in the press about joint planning with the United States Government on joint naval operations in the Gulf and give a commitment that they will not be carried out?

That would be an extraordinarily irresponsible commitment for me to give, but I should not want to draw the alternative conclusion. It is apparent that, in a world of uncertainty and danger, like-minded nations discuss potentialities and hypotheses very much in the hope that they will never arise. They would be much criticised if circumstances deteriorated to the point of an active war and we had made no plans.

When my right hon. Friend meets Lord Carrington, will he urge him to consider the need to make NATO as cost-effective and efficiently managed as possible, particularly with regard to the large number of civilians employed by the organisation?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard what I said a moment ago. I take the same approach. It is critical that, with these vast sums of money that we manage in the defence budget, we should always ensure value for money and that as much as possible of the money finds its way to the front line.

I accept that NATO is not expanding, but is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to last night's overseas broadcast by Russia, Greece has now abrogated nine of its 11 NATO treaties? If a similar Socialist Government came to power in this country, is it not likely that a similar shrinkage would occur here?

My hon. Friend will not misunderstand me when I say that I do not rely wholly for my political information on Soviet broadcasts about the policies of NATO. My hon. Friend might be best advised to pursue his inquiries with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will restate his definition of the concept of nuclear deterrence.

I refer the hon. Member to the section of the Defence Estimates 1981 headed "Nuclear Weapons and Preventing War."

What does the Minister of State consider to be the chief deterrent nowadays? The arms race has changed. We have moved from mutual armed destruction to the use of inter-continental ballistic missiles, and it is predicted that technology will take us into the age of space-based war. What constitutes the deterrent now—nuclear weapons or the arms race itself?

The essence of deterrence is to have sufficient capability to make it clear to any potential aggressor that it is not worth while attacking this or any other NATO country.

The Minister would presumably argue that we have effective influence over the United States through NATO. If so, is it necessary for us to duplicate the American nuclear deterrence system? Does not the insistence of Britain and France on maintaining an independent deterrent encourage other countries to do likewise?

I disagree. We have maintained our independent strategic capability because Britain is one of the very few countries, apart from the United States, which has that capability. That fact is welcomed by both the United States and our European NATO allies.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the first of class order for the type 23 frigate.

Negotiations with the lead shipbuilders, Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd., are in progress. We shall make an announcement on the placing of the order as soon as possible.

Given the customary year that will elapse before the placing of an order for a second of class, the dire need for new orders in the yards, the needs of the fleet for a modern post-Falklands frigate, and the lack of orders for major surface units over the past two years, are there not now grounds for moving more urgently?

The hon. Gentleman has always taken a deep and sincere interest in the size of the Navy, and this aspect in particular. We will place orders for the new type 23 at the rate of about three a year, after the initial gap after the placing of the first order. The Government have ordered 30 new ships since 1979. We now have 55 operational destroyers and frigates, and we intend to reduce that number to 50 by the 1990s.

What is the latest estimate of the cost of the type 23 frigate? Is it still Government policy that there shall be no mid-life modernisation of these frigates, which are presumably to be disposable?

We are talking of about £110 million for a type 23. We hope to get about four type 23s for the cost of three type 22s.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) is shared on this side of the House? Will the defence and hitting capability of these ships be an improvement on the present ones?

Yes, I know that there is wide concern about the size of our fleet of destroyers and frigates. In terms of weapons, the type 23 will be equipped with towed array sonar, an EH101 or a Sea King with Sting Ray torpedoes, vertical lauch Seawolf and the Harpoon surface-to-surface guided weapon.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the inquiry into the medical effects of the British nuclear testing programme.

The National Radiological Protection Board study to determine the incidence of mortality in United Kingdom service men and civilians who participated in the United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear test programmes is progressing to plan.

As the Australians have already established a Royal Commission and the American courts have already awarded damages to those affected by nuclear testing, and given that the British study may take three years, will the Government ask the NRPB to produce an interim report to allay the genuine fears about this?

I do not think that the NRPB, which is an independent body, would accept the relevance of an interim report. It has given the Government an estimate of the time needed to complete the study. It remains our view that that is the period that will be required.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that all British service men who may have been affected by radiation from those tests are aware of the survey and are being offered the opportunity to present their own medical evidence?

If my hon. Friend knows of any cases in which there are doubts I should be grateful if he would tell me about them. The NRPB is making strenuous efforts to ensure that the survey is as widely drawn as possible.

If the inquiry concludes that service men have been adversely affected by radiation in the Pacific tests, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that those affected, in particular the widow of one such service man in my constituency, will receive compensation?

I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to give an assurance ahead of publication of the study or in relation to particular cases. The Government will consider the best way to proceed in the light of the conclusions of the study.

Is it not thoroughly unfair that Australian service men who served side by side with British service men at Maralinga and elsewhere have been able to test their claims in the courts whereas that right has not been afforded to British service men? What do the Government intend to do about that?

As I have explained before, we have no plans to change the legislation. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the legislation provides, so that is my answer.

Is it not extremely unfair that service men are expected to write to the Department? Why does the Department not inform them of the inquiry so that they can present their evidence? What on earth are the Government afraid of'?

We are not afraid of anything. We are not talking about service men but about ex-service men. The NRPB has access to service records and is currently going through them. We are simply saying that anyone who wants to write in as well is welcome to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on relative North Atlantic Treaty Organisation — Warsaw pact conventional strengths in Europe in the light of the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation document "The Conventional Balance in Europe."

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the NATO document "NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons". The relative conventional strengths portrayed in that publication confirm the extent of the Soviet threat and the need to maintain a strong commitment to NATO.

Does the Minister agree that that document reveals that there are 58 fewer front-line divisions in the Warsaw pact than NATO originally estimated? As the NATO figure does not include the French or Spanish forces, will he confirm that we are significantly closer than the Government have so far admitted to possessing adequate conventional forces to countervail a Russian attack in central Europe?

I agree that the balance is constructed on a different basis from that which has applied in the defence Estimates. I believe that it is reasonable to include the French forces in the overall balance. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that we can conclude that the conventional balance is entirely satisfactory. As a result of spending undertaken by this Government some progress has been made towards redressing the conventional balance, but I draw attention to the fact that in the foreword to the report the secretary-general draws attention to the need for continuing efforts to maintain our security.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the NATO Alliance formed in 1947 has provided a very good protective shield around Europe? Does he further agree that we should endeavour to be not just a strong member but the strongest member of that Alliance?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend suggests that we should devote resources to defence in excess of those devoted by our American friends, but we make a stronger contribution to NATO than our fellow members in Europe. That is one of the excellent results of the Government's defence policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to be able to announce the placing of the two orders for type 22 frigates.

The tenders for these ships lapsed before the usual detailed examination of such factors as overheads and productivity had been completed. We are therefore seeking new tenders for type 22 numbers 13 and 14 and expect to receive replies in September. Once these have been clarified we hope to place orders before the end of this year.

Does my hon. Friend recall promising in the House that the tenders would be awarded before last Christmas? Is he aware that he gives disappointing news, not only for my constituents at Vosper Thornycroft, but for the constituents of other hon. Members in the naval shipbuilding yards?

I recognise that the placing of the orders for the type 22s has taken longer that we anticipated. We are looking for the best value for money. We recognise the critical importance of the orders to the respective yards. That is why we take the matter so seriously.

Will the Minister give due regard to the technical expertise that yards have shown in completing previous Ministry of Defence orders? Will he confirm that in that respect Cammell Laird has a record second to none?

I pay the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) generous tribute because I know how hard he has worked and campaigned for Cammell Laird, with some of my hon. Friends, to promote that shipyard's interests. I am happy to confirm that the Ministry of Defence has always been satisfied with the quality of work produced by Cammell Laird. However, I must say bluntly that, to put it mildly, we are not best pleased by the fact that no work has been done on the type 42 destroyer for the last four weeks and that 130 men from Cammell Laird — a minority—are blockading the yard and the rig. That will not be attractive to any prospective customer, whether it is the MOD or anyone else.

In view of the successful testing of the Sea Eagle system, is my hon. Friend prepared to reconsider his decision to purchase the American Harpoon?

The Sea Eagle, which we saw launched successfully on television at the weekend, was the air-launched version. That will be in service. There is no argument about that. Harpoon is the surface-to-surface weapon for the Navy. We have no intention of changing our decision on that.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the expression that best is the enemy of the good? Is he aware that it is often necessary to put in an order early rather than to await perfection? Is he aware that his answer will therefore cause disappointment?

I appreciate that the announcement will cause a degree of disappointment. Nevertheless, competition is still wide open. On the export front we are hopeful that yards such as Vosper Thornycroft will be in a position to win some export orders.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for implementation of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) on 23 July.

The Government suffered a further humiliating defeat in the other place last week when Labour amendments requiring that the ROFs be privatised only as a single entity were approved. Do the Government now intend to accept those amendments or seek to reverse them?

The Government expect to address the amendments made in another place when the Bill returns to this House in October. Therefore, the answer is that we shall not accept those amendments.

Why will the Government not accept the will of the other place in this matter? We know of the great concern that the Government claim to have for democracy, Parliament and the rule of law. All that their Lordships are asking is that Parliament should approve of whatever regulations and schemes that the Secretary of State may make, because at the moment nobody knows what he will do, and he has a free hand to dispose of these valuable national assets. Why will they not accept that?

These matters were considered in the House extensively and the will of the House was made known then.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on the Conservative Benches there is still considerable support for a decision that would allow the Ministry of Defence to sell some of the factories individually, rather than all of them collectively?

I note what my hon. Friend has to say.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any United States aircraft based in the United Kingdom are equipped to use chemical weapons including binary munitions.

No United States aircraft based in the United Kingdom are either tasked or specially equipped to carry chemical munitions.

I am pleased to hear that, but if the Government are serious about getting a chemical weapons ban—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—is the Minister prepared — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] to tell the United States that the United Kingdom does not want its chemical weapons in this country, and that we will not allow any planes in this country to have those chemical weapons? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Will he also tell the United States that he will provide no facilities and in no way countenance plans for a theatre chemical weapons war in this country or in Europe?

I did not entirely hear the hon. Member's question, but there is no deployment of chemical weapons in this country.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, as one of the parliamentary party that yesterday had the opportunity to visit Porton Down, I feel that it is good to see the strenuous and correct efforts being made by this country to combat the tremendous threat that we are suffering from the Soviet Union, which has 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons mounted against us?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the great severity of the Soviet offensive chemical capability, and I am also grateful for his tribute to the important defensive work done at Porton Down.

Will the Minister give a clear assurance that the Government have no intention of allowing American chemical weapons, binary or otherwise, to be established in the United Kingdom?

I can only repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I have said. There is no deployment by the United States of chemical weapons in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that nuclear weapons based on United States vessels in United Kingdom territorial waters cannot be used without the approval of Her Majesty's Government.

The operations of United States vessels in British waters are covered by long-standing bilateral and Allied arrangements. We, like successive British Governments, are satisfied with these arrangements.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the majority of the public in this country are concerned about the Government's answers that this is always by long-term agreement and understanding? Does he not understand that people want positive assurances from the Government that nuclear weapons based on ships in British territorial waters are on our land and will not be used if the United States of America is under threat? How can we assure the public that they will not be so used?

In the same way as all Labour and Conservative Governments since the war have succeeded in doing.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the United States Government now have funding for an integrated plan for the targeting of all its nuclear weapons? How will Britain have any veto over certain weapons if they are part of an integrated plan?

We have the advantage of profound and wide-scale discussions with the United States about the use of all their levels of military capability. Our problem is that we have no such discussions with the Soviet Union, which has just the same scale of nuclear capacity. That is the one factor which the Labour party simply will not face.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any discussions have been held with representatives of the United States Administration about a possible West European role in its strategic defence initiative; and if he will make a statement.

Consultation between the United Kingdom and the United States on all aspects of defence policy is close and comprehensive, and has naturally been extended to include the implications of the strategic defence initiative announced by President Reagan in March 1983. The United States Government have made no proposals for west European involvement in the programme, although President Reagan has made it clear that there will be no lessening of the United States nuclear guarantee to Europe.

Can the Secretary of State say what implications for the Trident programme lie behind United States' activities over the strategic defence initiative?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to answer in precise terms about the conclusions of a development programme which it has not been determined shall proceed and which is very much at the exploratory and research stage.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

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 my right hon. Friend agree that the NUM is making a complete mockery of the word negotiation if it is not prepared to make one single concession? Will she confirm that there is a great future for economically produced coal, and the fact that we produce deep mined coal at £100 per tonne compared to £19 elsewhere is an absurdity?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that deep-mined coal is produced more cheaply elsewhere than in this country. I believe that the offer that Mr. MacGregor made in the recent negotiations was very reasonable, and I am very sorry that it was not accepted. The offer that the Government have made shows that there is a great future for the coal industry if it is accepted, with better pay, investment and compensation for voluntary redundancies than have ever been offered by a Government.

Will the right hon. Lady give thought to the predicament of councils such as that in the city of Leicester, which was elected and re-elected on a programme of maintaining services for its citizens? Does she not recognise that the imposition of penalties through rate capping is a travesty of democracy and will certainly lead to a reduction in services, especially those most needed by the elderly, the disabled, the disadvantaged and those who are in desperate need of housing?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, in considering the level of expenditure it is necessary to consider also the interests of the taxpayers, the ratepayers, and those who are running small and larger businesses and who have to provide employment of the kind of which we all wish to see more. Their interests, too, must be taken into account.

asked the Prime Minister what is the minimum size and mix of the merchant marine fleet that is necessary to be maintained under the British flag for reasons of national security.

At present the United Kingdom registered merchant fleet numbers some 820 ships. The Government keep under continuous and detailed review the requirements of Her Majesty's Forces for support by merchant ships when carrying out their roles in the NATO Alliance and elsewhere, and the availability of merchant ships with specifications capable of meeting those requirements. For reasons of security, details of the ships that could be needed cannot be given.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the height of the Falklands conflict there were more ships flying the Red Ensign than the White Ensign in the south Atlantic? Is she further aware that if the decline in the size and the mix of the British Merchant Navy continues she will be unable to call on the same merchant marine ever again in support of the Royal Navy?

I understand exactly my hon. Friend's concern. The decline of the merchant fleet has been due to increased competition and continuing difficulties in the world shipping market. I think that the shipping industry is perhaps best at identifying the most profitable opportunities to keep its numbers as high as possible. I readily accept that the Merchant Navy is very important for our defence. It is also important to keep a merchant building capacity in this country, for strategic reasons.

Competition and other challenges are regular and continual factors. How does the right hon. Lady explain the fact that the British merchant fleet has been reduced by half since she became Prime Minister?

I gave the reasons in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). The decline in the merchant fleet is due to increased competition and continuing difficulties in world shipping markets. Against that background our shipping industry has done very well to create such large invisible earnings.

Are not the changes made in this year's Budget in allowances, taxation and investment in danger of accelerating that decline still further? Will the right hon. Lady halt those policies if she does not want to take the risk of sinking the British merchant fleet along with much of the British shipbuilding industry, and of losing £1,000 million in balance of payments earnings?

The right hon. Gentleman will readily accept that any changes in this year's Finance Bill cannot have had any effect on previous losses in merchant shipping—[Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman will also know, some final amendments were made during the passage of of the Finance Bill which were welcomed by the shipping industry.

Since Mr. Scargill——

Order. That has nothing to do with the question.

Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that coastal shipping is an important ingredient of the British fleet? Why does the right hon. Lady not adopt the same policy towards our coastal shipping as the French and other members of the EC adopt to theirs and make it the exclusive province of the British flag fleet with British-built vessels?

The answer is that we are trying the world over to reduce the amount of protectionism that is practised, particularly in countries such as the United States and India. It would be far more beneficial to have free coastal shipping there than to protect our own very much smallers shores. Our fleet will do better when we can reduce the amount of protectionism. The step suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not give us very much, if any, advantage.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

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

Does the right hon. Lady realise that her economic and industrial policies are now in tatters? Given that fact, the number of long-term unemployed, the many thousands of young people who have not yet found their first job, and the many people living on the poverty line, what hope do her policies hold out?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about our economic policy. As I have said in the House before, gross domestic product is up 2·75 per cent. on the year earlier, industrial output is up 3·5 per cent. on the year earlier, total fixed investment has grown by 10 per cent. and we have had the lowest annual average figure for inflation for 15 years. [Interruption.] I could cite many other examples, but the Opposition have started to make a noise, because they do not want to hear. I accept that it will be difficult to reduce unemployment, because the number of people of working age is increasing at a faster rate than the number of jobs. However, there has been an improvement in the prospects for young people and the youth training scheme is one of the best in the world.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the election result in Israel? Does not the repeated stalemate there demonstrate the weakness of proportional representation?

Yes, Sir, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so vividly.

Will the Prime Minister confirm, or deny, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is at the moment asking Government Departments to come forward with cuts in expenditure for this year as well as for next year? Will she give the House her estimate of the outturn of inflation, as it must be clear that the 4·5 to 5 per cent. figure is bound to be exceeded? Even in the City people are advocating a 7·5 per cent. inflation outturn for this year.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and other Ministers, are engaged in the public expenditure survey for next year, as is customary at this time of year. With regard to inflation forecasts for the end of the year, that will depend on how long the mortgage rate must remain at its higher level, which depends to some extent on the future of strikes.

Has my right hon. Friend seen that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is considering how higher education can best serve the future needs of industry? Does she agree that the gap in high technology skills that exists in the labour market must be filled as soon as possible with home-grown specialists if industry is to take full advantage of new opportunities in changing markets?

Yes Sir, but I have noticed recently much closer co-operation between universities and industries, especially regarding high technology. My hon. Friend knows that there are a number of science parks—I recently opened one at Warwick university—which are doing very well and securing the kind of co-operation that has been sorely needed.

According to the Prime Minister's earlier answers, she insists on absolute commercial viability for the coal industry. On what morality or criteria does she totally reject her responsibility for the social viability of that industry?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that social grants have always been given to the coal industry. They are a fundamental part of the financial structure. This Government have been more generous than any other in giving those grants to the industry and in making special arrangements for redundancy payments. Those two are treated separately from other grants to the coal industry, such as grants for operating losses, which are extremely high.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the collapse of the dock strike illustrates vividly that when Governments do not interfere, ordinary trade union members show very little wish to place their jobs in jeopardy in support of a political strike? Does she accept that there is now a crying need for the Government to provide for voluntary secret ballots, not merely for the election of officers, but wherever industrial action is contemplated, to enable trade union members to protect their jobs?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we shall debate trade union matters today, on which their Lordships thought that we had not gone far enough to protect the rights of ordinary members regarding the election of trade union officials. My hon. Friend will have noticed that in regions where a ballot of members of the National Union of Mineworkers was held and the majority voted to go back to work — that happened in Nottinghamshire where miners are back at work—they upheld the rules of the NUM rule book. They had a ballot and honoured the result.

Is the Prime Minister aware that when the general election was held just over 12 months ago jobs were still being lost at the rate of 20,000 a month? Given her forecasts of upturns, will she tell the House what the net job loss is? Is it 20,000 a month or fewer?

As the hon. Gentleman might have seen from the figures published last week, the number of people in work in the economy, including the estimated self-employed, is estimated to have risen by about 260,000 during the past year. The size of the working population is increasing faster than the number of extra jobs, so there is still an underlying increase in unemployment, which is given every month in the seasonally adjusted figures.

asked the Prime Minister if she will estimate the cost to date of the police operations in connection with the current coal dispute.

It is the responsibility of each police authority to assess the cost incurred in policing the dispute in the first instance. We have not so far required police authorities to submit running records of their costs, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has recently asked them to provide such information for the period up to 30 June.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever price is being paid, it is one that the British people are prepared to pay for as long as it takes to defend the rights of miners who wish to work? Does she agree that the miners are now being led by self-confessed Marxists, who are more concerned with pursuing section 3S of the NUM rule book—the overthrow of our free enterprise system—than they are with honouring rule 43, which provides for ballots before any strikes can take place?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One can never give in to violence and intimidation. If one does, it is the end to democracy in this country. I agree with my hon. Friend that where there have been ballots in the National Union of Mineworkers, as in Nottingham, they have shown that people want to return to work; in some cases they have returned to work and are now turning cut coal. I notice that some time ago the Leader of the Opposition said in the House:

"Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the fact that a national ballot of the National Union of Mineworkers is now a clearer and closer prospect than it was before today's meeting?" —[Official Report, 12 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 522.]

"There is no alternative but to fight."

Will the Prime Minister tell us how she can ignore the fact that thousands of families are in urgent need of help as a result of the strike? The Government cannot consider the cost to the coal industry of the planned reductions by herself and Mr. MacGregor until they take into account the social cost, which is rarely mentioned by her or by the Secretary of State for Energy. Why does she not consider the social cost to the mining industry?

As I said in answer to an earlier question, there is always a good social grant. The cost of voluntary redundancy, which is also borne by special grant, is about £250 million a year. The sums given are greater than those given by any previous Government. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, when the Whitehaven pit was closed, the miners said that they were satisfied with the money they received. The Government have fully taken care of the social cost, and I note that more mining jobs have been lost under Labour Governments than under Conservative Governments. The compensation given was not half as good.