asked the Secretary of State of Defence when he expects to announce the results of the annual review of the defence programme.

Information about the future defence programme will be given in the 1985 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" in the normal way.

As the existing commitments in the 10-year defence programme are reported to exceed available resources by as much as £10 billion, will the Secretary of State ensure that his next review makes it clear what non-nuclear commitments are being cut out to make room for the Trident programme?

The hon. Gentleman must learn to distinguish between a planning process and a commitment. There are no excess commitments in the Ministry's long-term policies, because such commitments have not been authorised by Ministers.

In the course of the review, will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to the future of the European fighter aircraft, bearing in mind that discussions are being protracted, largely by the French? Will he make provision, if necessary, for funds to go national?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's real interest in this matter from his constituency point of view, with which I sympathise. However, there are great prizes to be achieved if Europe can co-ordinate more closely its military procurement. Ministers of various Alliance countries are trying to achieve that, if possible. We cannot say that it is possible to achieve greater co-ordination, but we are trying to achieve it within the framework of the EFA discussions.

Has the Secretary of State had time to study an answer that I was given about using animals, without anaesthetics, to test the effects of cyanide poisoning? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of Conservative voters have told me that they will vote Labour at the next general election because of the Government's outrageous attitude to animal welfare? Does he believe that it is in the national interest to propose in the defence review the closure of Porton Down as a chemical research establishment or to consider it as a suitable and useful area for peaceful purposes?

I think we all realise the immensely difficult issues that are raised in the context of the research to which the hon. Gentleman draws the attention of the House. We must also realise that we have a responsibility to our troops, especially those in Germany who face the possibility of a chemical attack by the Soviet Union. It would be unthinkably irresponsible for a Ministry of Defence Minister not to do everything possible to provide them with the best preventive kit.

In the course of the defence review., will my right hon. Friend consider the role of export sales in making our defence programme possible? Will he encourage his Department of Trade and Industry colleagues to take a realistic attitude to potential export sales, particularly to countries, such as Turkey, which have never defaulted on such contracts?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and interest. I have the closest and most harmonious relationships with all my Government colleagues, who meet to discuss these difficult issues of priorities.

When the Secretary of State comes to publish the fruits of the defence review, will he be as candid as was the Minister of State for the Armed forces in the Royal Navy debate two weeks ago and admit that the cost of Trident is bound to come out of conventional defence programmes? If that is so, does he agree that, by cutting our conventional defence, he is weakening Britain's real defences and its contribution to NATO at a time when it is important to build up conventional defences and not to rely on the first use of nuclear weapons?

It is fascinating to note that the right hon. Gentleman, whose party campaigned during the election for a reduction of 30 per cent. in the conventional defence budget, should now tell us that the Labour party wants to improve our conventional defences.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to alter security precautions for exercises involving cruise missile convoys.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any proposals to change the security precautions for exercises involving cruise convoys.

Security precautions always remain under review.

Is the Minister aware that, in the early hours of 15 November, when a convoy of cruise missiles was entering Longmoor camp in Hampshire, two local inhabitants who were disturbed by the convoy were kidnapped by the police, deposited in a 5 ft deep pit, fenced by barbed wire, and guarded by two armed soldiers? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the deployment of cruise missiles will inevitably lead to this sort of erosion of civil rights and put us on the road to totalitarianism?

The hon. Gentleman has an extraordinary recollection of that event. Those individuals were trespassing in a military training area during a military exercise. To protect them, they were put in the one place where there was some shelter and cover from the elements—a rifle range, which was not, of course, being used at that time.

Does the Minister accept that interference with telephone lines in the neighbourhood of cruise missile convoy exercises, as happened last night, is neither tolerable nor legitimate as a security precaution? Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept that his strategy of trying to hide American weapons in the British countryside is doomed to failure, because many thousands of people will not turn a blind eye to what is going on?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The off-base deployment programme of ground-launched cruise missiles for training purposes has been extremely successful.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that there should be off-base deployment to maintain the credibility and deterrence effect of the second strike power of all this weaponry? It seems to me that that approach is broadly accepted not only by those who live in the area but by those who are concerned about defence matters.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for making that point. He is entirely correct.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the activity of people such as those who participate in Cruise Watch—whether or not they are aware of it—in monitoring the movement of these missiles off-base only aids and abets this country's enemies?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the amount of time and effort devoted by certain small minorities to watching cruise missiles is strange. Some Conservative Members wish that those people would devote the same amount of energy to watching the progress on SS20s on the other side of the wall.

Are not all these problems an indication of how ridiculous it is to base cruise missiles not only in Britain but in the most populous areas of southern England? Is it not a fact that the cardinal principle of ground-launched missiles is that they should be mobile and not be detected? These missiles are not mobile. It seems that everyone from here to the Kremlin knows where they are.

That is not the case, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The Government and NATO were right to serve notice on the Soviet Union that the massive increase in its capacity to blackmail western Europe through the SS20s would not go unanswered by the West.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that such are the safeguards built into the cruise missile system that the only risk of deployment is a traffic accident and, therefore, the right action for right minded people is to ensure that deployment can occur without obstruction?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I am sure that all responsible people believe that deployment for training purposes is a necessary part of deterrence. Responsible people will enable those deployments to take place.

asked the Secretary of Defence if he will make a statement on the development of RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury.

On RAF Molesworth I cannot at present add to my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 29 October .

Is the Minister proud of the fact that he is a member of a Government who have turned Britain into a police state against the miners? Not content with that, they are now crawling on their hands and knees to Reagan and the Americans and are prepared to bring conspiracy charges against the Alconbury seven to help site American missiles there? Why do the Government not send them back where they belong and drop the charges against those people? They are British people.

I am proud to be a member of a Government, as are all my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have cemented the Anglo-American alliance which formed the linchpin of our security during the second world war.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Cambridgeshire will not react kindly to any authority which allows to be established at Molesworth and Alconbury the type of peace-camp nonsense that was established at Greenham common? The people of Cambridgeshire do not expect to have to pay increased police bills as a consequence of any unlawful activity at Molesworth and Alconbury.

I note what my hon. Friend says. Police bills are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I am sure my hon. Friend accepts that the important deployment that will be taking place at Molesworth should be subject to the necessary security measures to protect the ground-launched cruise missiles as and when they are established there.

If Britain were to be the only significant territory within a nuclear alliance—NATO—on which no nuclear weapons were based, and if hostilities broke out with the Warsaw pact, would not the most likely area of NATO to be subject to nuclear attack be the United Kingdom, because the likelihood of retaliation would be rather less? If the United Kingdom were not to have atomic weapons on its soil, would we not be in more rather than less danger?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If the Opposition believe that it somehow serves our defence interests to ask our most important ally to go back across the Atlantic, their logic escapes me.

Will the Minister tell us when we shall reach a stage, such as we have at Greenham common at present, when what was originally a Royal Air Force camp turns into a United States air force base where we have little or no control over whether weapons are used in this country.

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the agreement establishing ground-launched cruise missiles in this country was between the United States Government and the Government of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any complaints about helicopters operating in Northern Ireland, especially in the Crossmaglen and Forkhill areas.

There have been a few complaints, including some from the Crossmaglen and Forkhill areas. We are considering whether the levels of noise referred to in these complaints are sufficient to justify the payment of compensation by the Ministry of Defence. A decision on this complicated matter will be taken next year.

May I urge the Minister to go to Forkhill and Crossmaglen and listen to local people? Is he aware that there is enormous feeling about the frequent helicopter flights? They sometimes fly as often as one every 30 seconds out of the military base at Crossmaglen. People who are by no means opposed to the security forces in general feel angry about helicopters flying at night 30 ft above their bedroom windows.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. This is an operationally dangerous area. Many members of the security forces have been killed. There is a substantial threat from culvert bombs. Therefore, substantial helicopter activity is essential.

Will my hon. Friend accept from those on both sides of the House who have been to Forkhill that people have a genuine complaint, particularly on Sundays when church services are upset by the noise of helicopters? Despite the security implications, will he do all that he can to ensure that only necessary flights take place on Sundays?

The security considerations must be paramount, but we shall take into account the points made, particularly about the sabbath.

As I live in the same county as Crossmaglen and Forkhill and within 100 yards of the helicopter station, may I put it to the Minister that the vast majority of people in County Armagh welcome the presence of the helicopters and their constructive contribution towards the pursuit of terrorists? Is he aware that people have been killed even during church hours?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. I am sure that the security forces will also be grateful.

Is the Minister aware that when more force than is reasonably necessary is used in sensitive areas, such as Crossmaglen, Forkhill and Derry, simply to appease Unionist politicians, not only is the infamy of the Black and Tans recalled, but the most notable and enduring casualty is the honour and reputation of the British Army?

Sit down, you silly man.

Say that outside.

Order.

With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is overreacting. I am sure that the security forces do not use more force than is necessary in the circumstances.

In view of the difficulty of operating helicopters in that region without infringing the border, is it not time that there was direct co-operation between the British and Irish Armies against those whom Dr. FitzGerald has described as the common enemy?

Relationships between the two forces are extremely good, but I take the specific point that my hon. Friend makes.

Can the Minister say whether helicopters were used at the time of the Gransha hospital incident last week? Can he also say whether the British Army has now abandoned its stop-and-search policy in favour of a shoot-and-kill policy? Is he aware that the yellow card procedures seem to have been completely abandoned? Can he also tell us whether the two people killed by the British Army last week were first given the opportunity to surrender, whether there were any warrants out for their arrest, and, if so, why they were not dealt with by the RUC?

The services are, as always, answerable to the law.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the equivalent numbers of nuclear missiles targeted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Warsaw pact countries on western Europe and vice-versa.

As detailed on page 43 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984", the Soviet Union has deployed about 1,800 intermediate and short-range land-based nuclear missiles facing western Europe. The equivalent figure for NATO systems based in Europe facing the Soviet Union is some 300. Strategic nuclear missile systems would be additional on both sides.

As there is clearly an imbalance in nuclear missiles in favour of the Eastern bloc, would not any simple nuclear freeze result in a greater threat to western Europe unless it were the first stage of an agreed, verifiable multilateral disarmament programme?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The fallacy of a nuclear freeze is that in the present circumstances it would merely freeze the very substantial superiority of the Soviet Union in this area and remove any incentive for the Soviet Union to reduce that superiority.

Is not the question of balance in terms of the number of warheads completely academic? Does the Minister appreciate that if nuclear war broke out in Europe many fewer missiles than those now sited would create a very cindery situation in this country and mainland Europe?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the policy of successive Governments has been that multilateral disarmament should be on a balanced and verifiable basis.

Does the Minister accept that whether he is counting missiles or warheads, which he is not counting today, the deployment of sea-launched cruise missiles, not only in the waters surrounding Europe but in the Atlantic and other areas totally annihilates the potential for verifiable arms control?

The deployment to which the hon. Gentleman refers is carried out by both the United States and the Soviet Union. In the short term, the Soviet Union is likely to have an operational capability for strategic ground-launched cruise missiles, strategic air-launched cruise missiles and strategic sea-launched cruise missiles.

As Mr. Chernenko is to visit this country soon, will my right hon. Friend give him a message to take back to the Soviet Union—that we want peace, but not at any price; that if the Soviets dismantle their nuclear missiles we will dismantle ours; and that the British people are not naive?

My hon. Friend summarises the message very well. The British Government want a more peaceful world, and a world that is also more secure. That means multilateral balanced disarmament by both sides.

When we consider nuclear missiles, must we not also consider strategic as well as Euro and intermediate missiles? On the question of a freeze, is it not true that there is a balance now, generally speaking, between the Soviet Union and the West?

Like the American Government. the British Government favour participation in both the strategic and intermediate areas. We have been taking part in the negotiations. We have been directly involved, for example in the talks on chemical weapons. Traditionally, strategic negotiations have been matters for the United States and the Soviet Union.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of conventional defence spending.

The defence budget for the current financial year amounts to £17·25 billion. Of this, some 97 per cent. will be spent on our conventional forces.

When will the Secretary of State realise that the electorate will not tolerate the kind of fob-off offered to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in answers to supplementary questions on question No. 1? Does not persistent dependence on a reduction in conventional spending inevitably mean that we rely more on the threat of nuclear arms and the sophisticated weapons that are being developed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that persistent reliance on that strategy means that we will inevitably contribute to the destruction of the globe?

I take a somewhat different view. All Labour Governments since the war have followed the policies that I follow. I believe that we should continue to follow those policies, because they have worked.

Will my right hon. Friend spell out the implications of a decision by this country to scale down our spending on conventional forces to the levels currently maintained by our NATO colleagues? Would not such a decision mean the decimation of our conventional forces and place greater reliance upon nuclear weapons?

I believe that all those consequences would indeed flow from such a decision, together with another which my hon. Friend did not mention, but which I am sure he will accept, namely, the incalculable effect upon the credibility of the NATO Alliance of Britain's taking a decision dramatically to reduce our commitment to defence.

Will not the assurances given by the Secretary of State today have a somewhat hollow ring for the 1,000 people who are to lose their jobs in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers workshops? Will they not directly relate any savings of that nature to a campaign to make money available for Trident in the future?

I do not think that anyone would seriously believe that that is the purpose of trying to get more value for money out of the defence budget, which, on all counts, we have a responsibility to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from representatives of British industry about the opportunity to re-establish a British light aircraft industry during his evaluation of the tenders for the new basic trainer for the Royal Air Force.

My right hon. Friend and I have received numerous representations from industrialists in support of the companies tendering for the new basic trainer aircraft including some reference to the wider aspects of re-establishing a civil light aircraft industry.

Will my right hon. and hon. Friends remember that Hunting Engineering Ltd.'s Firecracker is a beautiful aircraft, which well meets the RAF's needs, is wholly the product of private enterprise, is wholly privately financed, and would provide Hunting Engineering Ltd. with a real opportunity to re-establish the British light aircraft industry?

I appreciate my hon. Friend taking this opportunity to press the case of one aircraft. Of course, what he mentioned is one of a wide range of considerations that we have to take into account.

Is the Minister aware that what remains of the British light aircraft industry is to be found in my constituency? Is he aware that no fewer than three of the contenders have connections with the Isle of Wight, where unemployment is now approaching 17 per cent. and where many of those who work in the aircraft industry are working a three-day week? Will he assure the House that he will take those facts fully into account when making a decision about a replacement for the Jet Provost?

We shall take those facts fully into account. Perhaps I might say something about the light aircraft industry. We have short-listed two aeroplanes, which will be made by companies which are not manufacturing fixed-wing aircraft at the moment. That means that we are prepared to accept that possibility. However, there are many other considerations that will carry greater weight.

When considering these tenders, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that only the PC9, linked with the Hawk advanced trainer, will form a package that could provide major export orders?

There is no reason in theory why there should not be a package that involves the Hawk with another aeroplane.

Is the Minister aware that there is already a company in the light aircraft industry that has a worldwide reputation? Will he assure us that Shorts Tucano will also be considered?

Yes, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we really need an aeroplane that meets the requirements of the RAF? The RAF has undertaken an extensive review of the technical merits of all of the aeroplanes at Boscombe Down. Does he agree that what is wrong in this procedure is the fact that the air staff target has set a speed that is far too low for the RAF's requirements?

I agree that the operational requirements of the RAF must have priority, but, as I have made clear today and previously, there are many other considerations. I hope that we shall be able to make a decision reasonably soon, and preferably before the next round of Defence questions.

The whole House agrees that we require an aircraft that most meets the RAF's requirements. I understand that the overwhelming support for that comes from the PC9. Will the Minister confirm that, among the weighty considerations to be taken into account, there is not the fact that if Shorts get the order it will be made more attractive for privatisation? Secondly, will he confirm that if, for some strange reason, we have the RAF flying a Brazilian aircraft, thus becoming the laughing stock of NATO, that will not be done to enable us to have facilities to get down to the Falklands because of the Fortress Falklands policy?

I hope that the RAF will not be the laughing stock of anybody, whether it has an aeroplane that is designed in Brazil, Switzerland, Australia or the United Kingdom. There are many considerations to take into account. Relations with Brazil are important to Britain, as are relations with Switzerland, Australia and many other countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost in pounds sterling of Trident.

As I indicated in the answer that I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 13 November, the Trident estimate is currently being reviewed as part of the annual recosting of the defence programme. I hope to be able to announce a revised estimate to the House early in the new year.

Have not the Government been patently negligent in failing to negotiate with America an offset agreement guaranteeing work to British defence contractors? Is it true that, apart from the submarine and the warheads, British contractors have won only £12 million-worth of contracts out of a multi-million pound contract and that Britain is retaining less than half of the total capital cost? What will the Government now do to defend the interests of British defence contractors?

The hon. Gentleman touches on an important issue which is of concern to me. When we decided to purchase the Trident D5 system, it was an existing system with existing contractors in the United States. That makes it especially hard for British industrialists to break into the bidding process. However, substantial opportunities are available and I hope that British industry will take advantage of them. I shall be looking to ensure that, wherever reasonable, without raising undue hopes, we are pursuing such opportunities as exist.

Does my right hon. Friend see any significance in the announcement by Sir Charles Pringle, director of the Society of British Aerospace Companies, that the Ministry should look at the possibility of a home-grown Polaris system to replace the existing system?

It would be quite wrong to leave any doubt. There is no question of the Government's reviewing the Trident programme.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) contrast sharply with the assurances that he and his predecessor gave to British contractors? Is it not now clear that about half the colossal expenditure on Trident will go on American technology and jobs? How many hundreds of thousands of jobs might be created in this country if that £5,000 million or thereabouts were spent in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this decision was taken for defence reasons. The technology that we are purchasing is available in the United States, and it was considered that that technology gave Britain the best possible independent nuclear capability. That was the object of the decision. I shall do what I can to secure proper job opportunities in this country, but there is a limitation, for the reasons that I have given. The House will realise that virtually half of the Trident programme will be spent in Britain, and consequently very large numbers of jobs will be associated with it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that deterrence vitally depends on our ability to inflict an unacceptable level of damage on a would-be aggressor, and that the important aspect of Trident D5 is that, for the next 30 years, it will possess just that capability, while many of the alternatives on offer do not?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The alternatives were set out and discussed in the open government document. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government took the view that this is the system most likely to create the deterrence upon which our ultimate peace depends. We believe that we took the right decision, and there is no prospect of changing it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the total cost of Trident to be in excess of £10 billion? Will he confirm that that is double the original estimate? Will not the most likely consequence be that this will put increased pressure on the level of our conventional defence expenditure? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the result of that will be to heighten the nuclear threshold, thereby making nuclear war more, rather than less, likely?

The hon. Gentleman will remember the open government document, which I have with me, which refers to the cost as £7·5 billion. Therefore, his arithmetic does not stand up even if his figures are correct. The House will appreciate that most of the change about which we are talking is based on changes in the exchange rates at today's money values carried forward over the next 10 to 15 years, when the House is not capable of reaching an informed judgment about exactly what the exchange rates will be.

In considering the Trident programme, will my hon. Friend take account of the necessity of ensuring that when the Vickers shipyards are privatised, control of those shipyards remains firmly in British hands?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's question will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has responsibility for that matter.

If, as the Secretary of State rightly said, no one knows what the exchange rate will be in the next 10 years, how on earth can he trot out these spurious estimates of the cost of Trident? Given the present state of the British economy, the likelihood is that exchange rates will go down rather than up. Even more important, will he confirm what he said earlier— that he has no intention of looking at the suggestion of a Polaris Mk II to try to get him off the hook of paying for Trident?

I can confirm that we are not reviewing any other alternatives. We did so at the time of the review of the options and arrived at our decision. The right hon. Gentleman asks how I can trot out spurious calculations to give costings to the defence Estimates. The answer is simple. I inherited much precedent from the previous Government, to which I have slavishly stuck.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to which chief constables and to which fire officers general guidance has been given concerning safety aspects of movements of nuclear weapons: and when such guidance was last issued.

Guidance is issued to those chief constables and fire officers who have a need to know, and is kept up to date. For security reasons I cannot give details.

Is the Minister aware that this morning I received a letter on this matter from the Prime Minister, who says that guidance is given to chief constables and fire officers about the transport of nuclear weapons through their areas, "where necessary"? For the benefit of those who live in Leicester and other cities through which Chevaline and other missiles are transported, will he say whether the words "where necessary" mean that chief constables and fire officers are or are not told when such weapons pass through their areas?

We are not willing to disclose which chief officers are notified, as that would involve disclosing routes and methods of transport.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Leicester will welcome the news that such information is to remain confidential? Does he further accept that they are grateful for what has been done by the chief constable, the police and the fire services, and that any attack on them is completely unwarranted and undeserved? It ill-becomes the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) to behave like that and scare the people of Leicester in such a way.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his responsible attitude.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of animal experiments carried out by his Department.

Experiments involving the use of animals conducted by the Ministry of Defence are mainly directed at developing defensive measures against chemical attack. The Soviet Union maintains substantial stocks of chemical weapons and it is essential that our forces are protected. It is also necessary to ensure protection against biological warfare. Other work includes medical studies, including the study of wounding, and the diagnosis of disease.

Is the Minister aware of the ever-increasing anxiety of the general public about the barbaric experiments on animals that the Department allows to be conducted? Is he further aware that it seems that it is only by persistent questioning in the House that he will begin to outline the experiments that are allowed? What efforts is his Department making to find alternative methods of experimentation, if he claims that it is so necessary, rather than using defenceless animals?

Porton Down takes the lead in considering alternatives. The vast majority of the population, and of hon. Members, and all our service men and women recognise the necessary work that is done at Porton Down.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the comments of Opposition Members, there is no equivocation on this subject, and that the growth of non-animal-based toxicity tests has been rapid in recent years and months? Does he further agree that the tragic incident in India has highlighted the need for toxicity tests on cyanide, which are paralleled by the work at Porton Down?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful for his support. We resent some of the innuendo, abuse and exaggeration about the work of Porton Down.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the official reports on Exercise Autumn Train which took place in the Atlantic in November; and if he will make a statement.

Exercise Autumn Train 84 was this year's Fleet weapons training exercise. Some 20 Royal Navy and other NATO ships and submarines took part, as well as RAF Buccaneers, Nimrods and Phantoms. All participating units achieved considerable training value from the exercise.

Will the Minister assure the House that the operational effectiveness of the Fleet and its aircraft was not seriously affected by a shortage of spare parts, notably for the Sea King helicopters which embarked with 814 squadron on the carrier Illustrious?

There has been some difficulty in the supply of engine components for Sea King helicopters. That is partly a manufacturing problem. The overall stock of the Royal Navy is in pretty good shape.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the operational effectiveness of the Fleet was affected by the delay in ordering the type 22 destroyers? Does he accept that it is about time that the order went to Cammell Laird at Birkenhead?

My hon. Friend has introduced a difficult issue. As was made clear in the debate on the Navy, we shall try to resolve this matter quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the balance of advantage to the United Kingdom of the effects of the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy on defence procurement.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the memorandum of understanding relating to the FH 70 and Tornado programmes. The answer is yes.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but how can he be so complacent as to be satisfied with collaboration with companies such as Rheinmetall, when that company is now in court for supplying arms to Argentina via Spain—arms that were used against our men — and when that company is putting people in Britain out of work?

The memoranda of understanding and present circumstances show that for different reasons the balance of advantage lies with the United Kingdom in respect of both the FH 70 and Tornado programmes at the moment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.

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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

When considering whether a pit should close for economic reasons, does the Prime Minister think it sensible or reasonable that costs such as surface damage, which may continue for many years, whether that pit closes or not, should be included? Given the interest in, not to say controversy about, the National Coal Board's accountancy system that has been stirred up, would it not be helpful and constructive if the Prime Minister were to set up a full review now to look into the accounting basis for pit closures?

No, the board fully accepts that management decisions on pit closures should not be based on a single accounting document, and that has never been its practice.

Could my right hon. Friend find time today to consider how far my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has infringed his quasi-judicial capacity on airport policies by proceeding with the Civil Aviation Bill? Does she understand that there is grave concern among many hon. Members on both sides of the House that a fair decision on this matter is being prejudiced by the way in which matters are being handled?

I could not possibly accept my hon. Friend's strictures on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am aware of what happened this morning, but the future meetings of that Committee is a matter for the Chairman of that Committee.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 11 December.

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

Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her Government's mean and niggardly decision to cut old people's heating allowances for those on supplementary benefit by £1? Does she understand that this has caused considerable anxiety and concern in all parts of the House — a concern equal to that about student grants? Furthermore, will she resist any attempts by her Chancellor of the Exchequer to put 15 per cent. VAT on fuel prices, which will again cause severe hardship for pensioners and others?

The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the Government's excellent record on fuel allowances. The Government are spending £400 million this year on help with fuel bills, and £200 million of this goes to pensioners. The level of the heating allowances has risen by 40 per cent. more than the increase in fuel prices.

Is my right hon. Friend as concernd as I am about the activities of the drug companies, which are suggesting that the very limited movement into generic prescribing is calculated to create two levels of health service? Will she place on record the fact that there is no reason why any patient should be disturbed, because the efficacy of those drugs being recommended is at least as good as those with brand names? Will she also express surprise that general practitioners and the British Medical Association are prepared to lend their names to this campaign?

Yes, I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The House would have cause to criticise the Government if we did not get the best value for money spent on drugs in the NHS.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the youth training board of the Manpower Services Commission is recommending to the MSC that the pay of young people on youth training schemes should be increased to £34 next year? Is the Prime Minister willing to endorse that recommendation and so give assistance to young people on training schemes and their families, much as she did last week to deserving young people and their families involved in higher education?

No. I think that it is more important to get the maximum number of young people on the youth training scheme—[Interruption.] No. I think that it is much more preferable to get the maximum number of young people on the training scheme, to enable them to get jobs for which higher skills are necessary; jobs which would not be available to them but for that training.

There seems to be confusion in the Prime Minister's mind. There is no conflict between the quality of training, the numbers involved and the payment of at least acceptable rates of pay to young people. If the Prime Minister is interested in these matters, will she acknowledge that the youth training board is also interested in involving the maximum number of youngsters, but that it still recommends £34 a week? Will the right hon. Lady also accept that, because of the anticipated underspend in the next year, the MSC could pay £40 a week and still not exceed its budget?

If increases were to be made, resources would have to be found. The right hon. Gentleman talked about anticipated underspend. Precisely because of that anticipated underspend we increased other training services. The money has already been spent on other training projects.

Is the Prime Minister saying that after offering a guarantee to all young people—of which she boasts—that they will have education or training, she has been expanding other schemes by filching money from the funds that she was offering under that solemn guarantee to those young people? Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question? Does she think that young people should be properly paid, by the amount recommended by the youth training board—£34 a week —or does she think that they should continue to be underpaid?

The right hon. Gentleman's last question was inconsistent with his previous question. In his previous question he said that an increase was justified because of an anticipated underspend. In his last question he said that we had spent the anticipated underspend that he proposed to spend on increasing the payment — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said that we should increase the amount because of the anticipated underspend. I was telling him that because of the anticipated underspend we had already increased the spending. I am concerned about increasing the numbers of young people who are trained. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is impossible without imposing extra tax.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that claims made last week by an Opposition Member based on an article published in Accountancy that NCB accounts were a flawed instrument have been totally invalidated by the article being withdrawn— [Interruption]. The article's authors have admitted that they did not properly understand the accounting or decision-making procedures employed by the NCB and that they included factual inaccuracies in their article.

I understand from a press statement issued by the National Coal Board on 7 December that the NCB's members and its director general of finance yesterday met the authors of an article in Accountancy. The statement said:

"The board … explained how the authors had misunderstood the board's accounting and decision making procedures and drew attention to factual inaccuracies. The authors, who regretted that the orginal article had been circulated by the magazine before the board had an opportunity to discuss it with them, readily agreed to review the contents of their article.

The board … expressed their willingness to discuss with the authors their revised article."

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the £10 Christmas bonus for pensioners introduced by a previous Conservative Government in 1972 is now worth only £2.80 in real terms? Is the right hon. Lady continuing to refuse to uprate the bonus? Does she realise that comparisons between her and Mr. Scrooge are wholly unfair, because he was prepared to see the error of his ways?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this Government have paid the Christmas bonus every year—unlike the last Labour Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman helped to keep in power. This Government will continue to pay the Christmas bonus. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more, will he tell the House where the resources should come from?

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.

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

Although many people agree that the laws on Sunday trading need to be reviewed, does my right hon. Friend agree that the traders who opened last Sunday should be roundly condemned for opening illegally? Would it not have been preferable for those traders not to have opened illegally on Sunday but to have left the matter for Parliament to consider and reach a decision?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the law must be obeyed until it is changed by Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.

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

The Prime Minister said earlier that the National Coal Board does not use any one set of accounting figures in relation to colliery closures. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why she stood at the Dispatch Box last Thursday and tried to defend the NCB's practice of using a single set of figures? What was said in the article about those figures has not yet been withdrawn. Have not those figures been described as a mine of misinformation?

I have made the position perfectly clear. The NCB fully accepts that management decisions on pit closures should not be based on a single accounting document. That has never been its practice. What I said last week still obtains—that, whatever the accounting procedures, the taxpayer has paid £1·3 billion subsidy to the NCB. That is a matter, not of accounting procedure, but of fact.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to study the recent conclusion of Professor Patrick Minford that the best possible way to reduce unemployment is to raise tax thresholds?

I accept the implication behind my hon. Friend's question that there is an unemployment trap because there is virtually no gap between the level of what a person can receive on supplementary benefit and some of the levels of pay, and because of the difficulties that occur when withdrawing certain means-tested benefits. It is vital to raise the thresholds. Under Conservative Government, thresholds have been raised by 16 per cent. in real terms, compared with a fall under the last Labour Government.

Does the Prime Minister recall her assurance to the House last month that the United Kingdom would not pass on to the European Community super levy payments unless other countries were seen to be complying with the milk quota scheme? What is her reaction to the strange decision of the Commission last night to withhold from the United Kingdom's regular agriculture payments an amount equivalent to what it assumes to be the super levy due by the United Kingdom to the EEC?

This matter will be dealt with in the normal way, by representations to the Commission. What I said will hold.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Wang factory which will be opened next week in my constituency by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and of the news today that Hughes Microelectronics has announced a £25 million expansion scheme in Glenrothes, creating some 500 jobs? Is it not a tragedy that the Labour-controlled local authorities which represent those areas are adding to the costs of these new businesses by squandering more than £1 million of ratepayers' money in support of striking miners?

Yes. I was very glad to hear the news about Hughes Microelectronics setting up in Glenrothes, which means some 500 new jobs. I agree with my hon. Friend that when local councils put heavy rates on business, ultimately it will drive away business from that area. Also, I agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's question that the strike is doing untold damage to the repuation of this country for value for money and speedy delivery.

On a point of order—

I will take points of order afterwards, unless they are directly related to questions.

Yes. It is directly related to questions.

Very well.

I apologise for raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed that during defence questions when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) raised a question you called the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) to give, quite rightly, a contrary point of view. I do not complain about that, but the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has just made a scurrilous and untrue allegation against—[Interruption.]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching the clock, he would have seen the reason why it was not possible to call another hon. Member.