asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of nuclear artillery in British Army tactical planning.

The role of the British Army's nuclear capable artillery is to contribute to NATO's overall strategy of deterrence and flexible response.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but will he tell us why that announcement was not made to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 24 October, when it was clearly said that no decisions had been made? However, in the Senate, Dr. Wagner, the Assistant Secretary for Defence, announced in its official journal that NATO had agreed that the 155mm and the 8-inch shells should be converted to nuclear use. Why was that information not given to the House when the Minister had the opportunity to do so on 24 October?

The hon. Gentleman did not take my answer. He is talking about procurement aspects, which should be dealt with in answer to a question that follows almost immediately. His question related to the role of nuclear artillery in British Army tactical planning, and the answer that I have given him is an answer that has endured throughout this Government's and previous Government's view of these matters.

Is not the real role for this nuclear artillery, stationed so close to the front-line in Germay, to provide Britain and NATO with a chance to use nuclear weapons first in the case of a conventional attack? Is not that policy not only morally disreputable but militarily dangerous, in the sense that it places local commanders in a position whereby they must either use those nuclear weapons or risk losing them during an attack?

The rationale of having nuclear capable artillery is to provide a deterrent against the use of the heavy nuclear capable artillery asset which the Warsaw Pact has potentially available for use against us.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now state the total cost of the Molesworth operation; and what was the number of personnel involved.

I can give an answer as it applies to my Ministry. Three hundred Ministry of Defence police were engaged in clearing the site of trespassers; 1,500 Army personnel were engaged in the erection of a temporary fence and other facilities.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Defence included himself among that number. Does he realise that he cut a sorry sight as he pranced about at Molesworth in an Army flak jacket, especially since, when he was in the real Army, he hated wearing the apparel so much that he got himself out as quickly as he could? The exercise was carried out all because he wanted to remove a few peaceful protestors, Quakers and a white goat.

I must concede one point to the hon. Gentleman. I took what trouble I could to plan that exercise, but I made one miscalculation. I forgot to take a coat with me and it was raining.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that money spent to restrain unrepresentative groups who are trying to disrupt the Queen's peace and to change our policy for keeping the peace is money well spent?

When my hon. Friend talked about money spent on restraining unrepresentative groups which threaten the peace, I thought that he might be talking about the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It would certainly be money well spent in that case. I support completely what my hon. Friend said. Had we not carried out that exercise, there could have been incalculable additional costs, which were avoided because the exercise was so successful.

Will the Secretary of State tell us what United States National Guardsmen are doing in this country? Are they being used to train people to deal with civil disobedience at Molesworth and elsewhere? Will he explain why Ministry of Defence officials were called to the American embassy—

Order. The hon. Lady should read the question carefully. It deals with the cost of the Molesworih operation and has nothing to do with American guardsmen.

The question also asks about the number of personnel involved, Mr. Speaker. My question was related to that.

I can help the hon. Lady. If she looks at the briefing notes for the last Labour Government she will find exactly what American personnel are doing here on our nuclear bases.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Mayor of Peterborough, with Labour and Liberal councillors, are conniving to hand over council property to CND, which will use it to advise Molesworth protesters how to evade and to break the law? Does my right hon. Friend accept that although that is typical of the bodies referred to, it is not accepted by my—

Order. I do not think that that question has much to do with the original question either.

Is the Secretary of State aware that by donning a flak jacket he achieved what the emperor achieved by taking off his clothes? We can see as a result what a pathetic exercise it was. That the Secretary of State had a role in planning the exercise says a lot about the way in which his mind works and the way in which the Government approach such matters.

I am sorry to be boring, but I did want to keep dry. That is why I put on a flak jacket.

Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity since he last made a statement to the House on the issue to assess the cost benefit of the exercise? On reflection, what was the purpose of the expenditure? Was it not to depress dissent, as the Wintex exercise which starts today will attempt to do?

The Wintex exercise is designed to preserve the credibility of our deterrent and therefore to maintain the peace. I can help the hon. Gentleman about the cost-effectiveness of the Molesworth exercise. It ensured that the large numbers of people living in that area were not subjected to harassment by those who were illegally operating on Ministry of Defence land. It denied the opportunity for continued occupation and for the frustration of the Government's legitimate right, and it secured the enhancement of the Government's policy to maintain NATO's policies because those policies have secured peace. That is a peace which the protesters are only too happy to enjoy because within it they can further their protest.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what alterations were made to Sir John Fieldhouse's Commander-in-Chief's report on the Falklands war at the Ministry of Defence or at Northwood; which were made with Sir John's knowledge and consent; and on whose authority the remainder were made.

As with all official reports, the Commander-in-Chief's dispatch went through more than one draft. I can assure the hon. Member that the sentence dealing with the detection of the General Belgrano in the dispatch as published was unchanged throughout the drafting process. Any amendments that were suggested on other matters were agreed personally by the Commander-in-Chief.

Why should it be believed that it was for intelligence considerations that Sir John Fieldhouse's report did not state in the first place that the submarine was detected on 1 May? If there were intelligence considerations Sir John Fieldhouse would never have put in the first draft the true answer that it was detected on 1 May. Surely Sir John understands intelligence as much as anybody else?

Sir John would undoubtedly fully understand all the implications of the exercise in which he was, of course, intimately involved. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seeks to establish that the Ministry tried in some way to change Sir John Fieldhouse's draft against Sir John's wishes. That is not the case. There is no foundation for that suggestion, and I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman continues to pursue the matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of the British people understand clearly why the Belgrano was sunk and believe that the time of my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and staff would be far better spent in preparing Britain's defences against external enemies than in answering fruitless inquiries about this obscure historical incident?

My hon. Friend is in touch with the mood of the British people and with the mood of the House, but I have to respect the rights of hon. Members to ask questions such as that asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), however daft they may be.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made any changes in the specifications for the Royal Air Force basic trainer.

No, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in December his colleague the Minister of State for Defence Procurement selected the Short's Tucano and the PC-9 for best and final offers because both met the specifications?

I certainly can confirm that.

Will my hon. Friend, in making the selection with his right hon. Friends, place a high priority on the degree to which each of the contenders approaches the specifications set by the RAF? Which one came best in the evaluation at the aeroplance and armament experimental establishment at Boscombe Down?

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on the first part of his question, but I am not prepared to be drawn on the second.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the modernisation of Britain's tactical nuclear weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the modernisation of Britain's nuclear weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the acquisition by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces of new nuclear artillery shells.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is considering the modernisation of the Army's nuclear artillery shells.

Nuclear shells for artillery deployed in support of the Alliance by the United Kingdom and other NATO countries are provided by the United States of America. NATO Ministers have identified a range of possible improvements and SACEUR is undertaking a review, but no specific proposals have been made. As for British theatre nuclear weapons, no early decisions are likely or required, although it is normal practice to keep under review the need to replace all United Kingdom in-service weapon systems.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) informed my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that our United States allies were not considering improving the artillery shells that are deployed? However, Bernard Rogers, when speaking to a sub-committee of the United States Senate, made it absolutely clear that he wanted massive improvements to and refinements of the 155 mm shells to allow those shells to take an enhanced radiation warhead. Is it not a fact that that weapon will be more dangerous than the weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? About 200,000 people died in a year in those cities. How many will die if we start using these types of artillery shells?

General Rogers is entitled to express his views. In March SACEUR's formal review will report to the nuclear planning group on the composition and improvements of the nuclear stockpile in the longer term. The matter of the enhanced radiation or neutron weapon is for the Alliance to consider at the highest political level. No proposals have been made. There are no so such rounds in Europe.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that any modernisation of British nuclear weapons, irrespective of the reason for that modernisation, represents an escalation in the arms race, which is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people? Is that why conflicting statements have been made to the House of Commons and to the United States Congress?

I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I draw the attention of the House to an article last week in the New Statesman, which stated:

"The Soviet Union is also modernising its short-range nuclear forces with a new nuclear mortar artillery and three new surface-to-surface missiles in a classic example of the arms race."

Is it not a fact that on 1 May 1984 Dr. Wagner told the United States Congress that he had a list of improvements? He referred specifically to the 155 mm artillery shell and the 8 in shell. He said that NATO Ministers endorsed all the proposals. Does that not directly contradict the answer given both earlier and later to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and others of my hon. Friends? Is this possibly another case where a civil servant was asked to produce two different briefs—one that told the truth and one that misled the House—and we received the one that misled the House?

I cannot comment on the first aspect, because Dr. Wagner is not a United Kingdom citizen—he is a United States citizen. I cannot comment on specific United States plans, although I repeat that there are no specific NATO proposals. We are awaiting the SACEUR review.

Will my right hon. Friend purchase the Copperhead laser-guided I55mm shell? If not, why not, given the fact that recently it scored 10 hits out of 10?

With respect, I cannot answer that question, and I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Is it not a little absurd that we should have a balance of deterrence in nuclear weapons which we continually update, whereas we do not have a balance of deterrence in chemical weapons?

The Government's position on chemical weapons is well known. There has been no change.

Does my hon. Friend agree that even a defensive alliance such as NATO must continue to modernise at every level if it is to retain its credibility? Has not the Warsaw Pact recently moved new heavy artillery nuclear brigades into the forward area?

The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. I agree that we must modernise our deterrent. It must be continually reviewed if it is to be effective.

Is the Minister aware that public opinion within the Alliance is looking, not for the modernisation of tactical nuclear weapons, but for less reliance on their use? Does he agree that the first and perhaps most pressing condition of that now is adequate sustainability at a mundane level such as 30-day stock levels of ammunition, spare parts and petrol? Will he assure the House that he and his colleagues are meeting SACEUR's anxieties on that matter.

Sustainability is very much in our minds. I do not wish to be precise on specific days of reserve requirements, for obvious reasons.

Is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary aware that when his colleague the Minister of State wrote to me about the FH70 he gave me a categorical assurance that it had no nuclear role? However, before the House on the Hill a statement was made by Administration officials. They said:

"NATO has expressed an interest in modernising nuclear artillery. Specifically, the British, Germans and Italians are concerned that their modern FH70 Cannon under development will be nuclear-capable."

Too long.

Order. Interruptions take up time. Come on.

Secondly, as the United States armed forces are developing a forward artillery ammunition supply vehicle which is capable of supplying nuclear weaponry to that howitzer, will the Minister give an undertaking that we will not practise with such supply weapons in the future?

There is plainly some confusion about that weapon, and therefore in all fairness I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the precise position on it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of the sovereign bases in Cyprus.

The sovereign base areas in Cyprus are an important British defence asset. I expect them to remain so.

Is not the concept of sovereign bases now anachronistic? If there was a notional contribution to the stability of the area, was its credibility not completely destroyed by the failure of the United Kingdom to take any action when the invasion of Cyprus by its NATO ally Turkey took place?

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is a dangerous moment to suggest that the concept of sovereignty somehow becomes anachronistic. The base is sovereign British territory as laid down in the 1960 treaty. It has the full rights of sovereignty that we associate with the use of that word.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the sovereign base areas are among the few places where Turkish and Greek Cypriots are working and living happily together? Secondly, will he confirm that the sovereign bases are used to supply the UN peacekeeping force not just in Cyprus but in southern Lebanon, that Britain supplies the largest national element in that peacekeeping force based on the sovereign bases, and that the sovereign bases play an important part?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am glad to confirm both the points that he raised. It is the case that one of the social benefits of our use of the sovereign base areas is that we employ approximately 3,400 locally-employed civilians and, as my hon. Friend says, they come from both communities. I also confirm what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the logistical back-up that we provide from the sovereign base areas both to the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus and to the United Nations force in the Lebanon.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group in March.

The nuclear planning group will meet on 26 and 27 March in Luxembourg. This is one in a series of bi-annual meetings of NATO Defence Ministers, the purpose of which is to discuss nuclear matters within the Alliance.

Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity at that meeting in March—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] The right hon. Gentleman reads the answers, I am reading the questions. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity in March to take positive steps to withdraw battlefield nuclear weapons and to ensure that no plans are put forward for the introduction of artillery shells that are capable of transformation into advanced radiation weapons, which are more commonly known outside the Chamber as the ideal capitalist bomb, the neutron bomb?

As the hon. Member will remember, the neutron bomb was an idea supported by the last Labour Government. We have no plans for the introduction of such a weapon. When I am asked about nuclear weapons of every range, I reply that I shall go on with the policies pursued by the last Labour Government because I believe that they work. They maintain the peace, and I can see no argument for abandoning those policies.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the people of this country expect any responsible Government to ensure adequate defence for themselves and their allies, and they congratulate him on his continued efforts in this regard and expect him to continue to do just that?

My hon. Friend is right, and that is the principal reason why we can assure the Labour party that it will remain in opposition for the foreseeable future.

Will the Secretary of State give some sign, particularly to the people of my constituency, of when he will raise the upgrading of Pitreavie with his NATO partners, because we are extremely anxious about this particular deliberation? There is a story in The Scotsman today, which perhaps the Secretary of State will catch up on, which says that we shall duplicate Northwood at Pitreavie. What will the cost of that operation be? How much NATO finance will be involved? If the right hon. Gentleman does not have an answer, perhaps he will write to me.

I am grateful to the hon. Member. I have not seen The Scotsman today — an omission that rarely happens during the course of the day. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on those points.

What general matters will be discussed in the nuclear planning group in March? Hon. Members on both sides of the House are becoming fed up with getting different accounts from the Government and from the United States Congress. This is a real problem, and I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates it. How shall we get proposals in March on the modernisation of these weapons? Will the Government say clearly to the Americans that they have no intention of allowing nuclear shells to be used for the FH70 howitzer?

The right hon. Gentleman, who clearly follows these matters, will remember that NATO has taken a decision to see how far it can reduce its short-range nuclear weapons. The principal item that we shall have to deal with in the forthcoming meeting, the agenda of which has not been finalised, is the scale to which we can carry out the Montebello decision to reduce the number of short-range nuclear weapons. In that process, we shall have to discuss which of the remaining capabilities have to be modernised. That is obviously a dual decision. How far we shall make progress, I cannot anticipate.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are currently stationed in South Korea.

The United Kingdom currently contributes a detachment of 34 to the United Nations honour guard in Seoul. A further six personnel are serving with the Commonwealth liaison mission, including the commander, who is also the British defence attaché.

Why, almost a third of a century after a destructive and divisive war, have we even a token British military presence in effect supporting a Right-wing regime which has a deplorable human rights record? Why are the British Government actively supporting the presence of 40,000 American troops, and American nuclear weapons, just a few hundred miles from the Russian and Chinese borders? Is that not a provocative presence that could be a grave impediment to the peaceful reunification of Korea?

As for the British armed services detachment, the hon. Member is wrong in his concept of that detachment. It is there to discharge a commitment to the United Nations. I should have thought the hon. Member would support that commitment. Its duties are principally ceremonial, but it also has some security duties relating to the British embassy in Seoul.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men are currently based at RAF Molesworth.

The Army personnel have largely withdrawn, their task successfully completed, and the site is now guarded by Ministry of Defence police. There remains a small and variable number of service men, both RAF and Army, with responsibilities for command, control, communications and other support to the Ministry of Defence police.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he may have to increase the number of personnel? The Mayor of Peterborough, in conjunction with Labour and Liberal councillors, is conniving to make available city council property to CND so that it can advise protesters at Molesworth about how to evade and break the law. Will my right hon. Friend accept that while this is typical of the bodies mentioned, it is rejected by the majority of my constituents, who are both law-abiding and supportive of the Government's policies?

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me such conspicuous notice of the question that he intended to ask. It is quite obvious that the gain of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is the loss of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). I have no doubt at all that the overwhelming majority of the British people will share my hon. Friend's fury that those who seek to frustrate the will of the majority of the people and Government of this country impose an unwarrantable burden upon the ratepayers of individual constituencies, whose support for those people is no more than that of this House.

Has the Secretary of State considered the ill-timing of the Molesworth operation, which could have a detrimental effect upon the talks between the United States of America and the USSR, which at long last are under way?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares the assumption that the return of the Soviet Union to the negotiating table, from which it walked away, came about because the Western powers remained resolute about the maintenance of their own defence and deterrence. It is precisely because we have remained resolute that the Soviet Union, against the advice of the Opposition and of all the peace groups who tried to frustrate the majority Governments of the West, has now been forced back to the conference table.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest pamphlet from CND, which asks its supporters

"if they wish or do not wish to take part in civil disobedience"?

My hon. Friend has paid a great deal of attention to these matters. He is absolutely right. He can be assured that we shall pursue whatever policies are necessary for the maintenance of peace. The publications of CND are not required reading in the Ministry of Defence, unlike The Scotsman. However, we must accept that in a free society there are those who will give all manner of curious advice to constituents. What is so surprising is that the Opposition, who are supposed to believe in law and order, apparently support these actions.

Will the Secretary of State explain to the House that the reason why he is no longer reading CND publications is perhaps because he is now listening in to or reading transcripts of telephone conversations which his Department authorised so that it could obtain political information about non-subversives, which would serve the political interests of the Conservative party and which the security forces could use for that purpose?

That is an argument that might appeal to the Opposition, but the real reason why I no longer bother to read CND publications is that I found something from the 1930s which contained all the same arguments and which proved to be wholly ill-founded.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning United Kingdom battlefield nuclear weapons.

Battlefield nuclear weapons operated by United Kingdom forces consist of the Lance missiles and nuclear capable artillery in service with the British Army in Germany. The nuclear warheads for those weapons are provided by the United States.

Will the Minister accept that that will be a disappointing reply to many people in Britain who are completely opposed to any kind of nuclear weapons? Will he press his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to obtain an option of no first use of those weapons when he goes to NATO?

I am surprised at what the hon. Gentleman says, because the particular weapon systems to which I referred were all in service at the time of the Labour Government.

Will any statement that is made include reference to the Government's position in opposing the activities of CND by phone-tapping in so far as the Department treats it as an enemy of the state? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that Parliament has a right to know and that we should have a full statement? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box to make that statement?

Order. I find it difficult to relate that question to question 16.

Will the Minister now reply to the serious point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), when he asked him to ensure that in future there will be no discrepancy between statements made in the House, such as the answer given to me on 7 June 1984, and statements made previously in Congress?

I do not think that I can add to the answers given on that question previously.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the disposal of defence lands.

It is the policy of the Ministry of Defence to dispose of land and buildings that are no longer required for defence purposes.

Will the Minister accept that the Ministry of Defence acquired large areas of land in Britain during the first and second world wars and has been reluctant to give up that land ever since, despite the fact that the Nugent committee report in the 1970s recommended that a great deal of land should be released? In particular, much of the northern Pennines, which are no longer used for military purposes, are still not available for public use.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. Since 1973, when the Nugent committee reported, we have disposed of about 50,000 acres of land — 7·6 per cent. of the total. That has produced receipts of nearly £400 million. A further 6,000 acres are with the PSA for disposal. We allow as much public access for recreational purposes as other priorities allow and co-operate closely with the national park authorities.

How many acres of land are held by the Ministry in Gibraltar? Is that land required for defence purposes? If not, will he ensure that it is handed over to the civilian population of Gibraltar as soon as possible in order that that part of the country may be economically viable?

The right hon. Gentleman and I were at the Gibraltar heritage conference earlier this morning. The Ministry of Defence has played its full part in releasing whatever land and buildings it can to help Gibraltar develop, particularly its tourism, and, obviously, we are reviewing other areas. We are anxious to help, but I must make it clear that Gibraltar has a substantial continuing strategic and military role.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received since his most recent announcement of the revised cost of the Trident system.

Since I announced the revised Trident estimate on 29 January 1985, at column 135, I have received some 60 letters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that until such time as there is a substantial agreement on verifiable multilateral disarmament, the United Kingdom must retain an independent and indestructible nuclear deterrent? Will he confirm to the House that that is his intention?

I can confirm that it is our intention to maintain the irreducible minimum nuclear deterrent in partnership with our conventional forces. It is self-evident that those policies have worked in maintaining the peace, and we intend to continue them.

Has the Secretary of State noticed the growing opposition to Trident within the British establishment — within senior military circles and the Tory party? Will he at least admit to the House this afternoon that on the basis of yesterday's dollar-sterling rate Trident will cost more than £10,000 million and that more than half of that will be spent on American jobs and technology?

The House is familiar with the proportion of expenditure across the Atlantic, but the House will also know that the bills for Trident will not begin to mount significantly until later in the decade and it is the exchange rate that prevails at that time, not the current exchange rate, that will determine the final cost. The overall policy will not be changed because of that. It is our belief that we must modernise our independent nuclear deterrent and we intend to do that with the Trident D5 programme. It will be my responsibility, and that of my successors, to fit that into the defence budget.

Has my right hon. Friend received any representations that would make him change his mind about his statements to the House that Trident will not have a deleterious effect upon the conventional procurement budget?

My hon. Friend will realise that all budgets are a matter of the allocation of priorities. He will be aware that the Government have increased the defence budget in real terms by £3,000 million a year and that at its peak Trident will be only a fraction of that enhanced capability.

Does the Secretary of State recall that when the Prime Minister first heard from President Reagan about his nuclear defence in space initiative, her initial response was that it would render Trident useless by 1995? How does the right hon. Gentleman view the position? If space defence against nuclear weapons is possible, what will that do to Trident?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused in his analysis. There is no question of SDI rendering Trident out of date. The issue would be seriously considered only if SDI were to be deployed and if that was coincidental with the ownership of SDI by hostile parties — two extremely questionable assumptions.

The Secretary of State clearly hopes that he will not be around when the bills for Trident begin to come in. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that since the last defence Estimates the cost of Trident has risen by £1,000 million merely because of the fall in the exchange rate? Is he further aware that studies in the United States show that almost every major American defence budget has cost a great deal more than the original estimates because the estimates are deliberately played down to get funding and approval from Congress? Are not Trident's costs totally out of control? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that if he goes ahead with Trident it will mean massive cuts in conventional defence and massive damage to our contribution to NATO?

Bearing in mind the damage to our contribution to NATO — the policy upon which the Opposition forced the last election — I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has the nerve to raise the issue in the House. This Government believe, as the previous Labour Government believed, that an independent British nuclear deterrent is an essential part of our policy to maintain peace. Unlike the Opposition, we are determined to see our policy through.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much he anticipates spending to maintain security at RAF Molesworth up to the arrival of cruise missiles.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated annual cost of security at the Molesworth base.

Missiles will not be delivered to RAF Molesworth until about 1988 and in the meantime the security operation will be such as to ensure that the construction programme is completed on time. It is too soon to say what this operation will eventually have cost.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the cost is likely to be substantial, and that it is a rather distressing cost? Is it not the right time to recognise that he should freeze expenditure on and deployment of nuclear weapons to ensure progress in the nuclear disarmament talks?

The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have caught up with the news. The Soviet Union has been modernising its intermediate range weapons for a considerable period of time—far longer than the West. It has now come back to the conference table in no large measure because the West is determined to maintain its deterrent, against the advice of the Opposition.

Would not the Secretary of State do better to save expense on the security of Molesworth by recognising that the majority of people do not believe that Britain should have cruise? Should we not take into account the fact that the United States would use cruise if it was threatened but this country was not threatened? The matter is completely controlled by the United States and, if put to the test, there is no doubt that it would use cruise.

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman reject so firmly the policy upon which all Labour Governments since the war have relied. The only consequence of not proceeding as we did at Molesworth would have been to inflict a quite unwarranted burden on the citizens of Molesworth and the surrounding areas, who would have been obstructed — legally and illegally — by supporters of the policies in which the hon. Gentleman believes, at immense cost to the ratepayer and the taxpayer.

Does my right hon. Friend intend to install a weld-mesh fence around Molesworth, as he has agreed should be installed at RAF Greenham Common, and when will the later be installed?

No one knows better than my hon. Friend the consequences of not proceeding with the dispatch that the Government showed at Molesworth, because my hon. Friend has had to suffer, on behalf of his constituents, the intolerable behaviour that has surrounded Greenham Common. We are now proceeding with the installation of a weld-mesh fence at Molesworth, and I have before me plans to consider such an operation at Greenham Common.

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

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

In accepting our congratulations on the outstanding success of her recent visit to America — [Interruption.]

Order. There is very limited time for Prime Minister's questions.

—will my right hon. Friend confirm that she agrees with President Reagan that, for the European currencies to estabish a correct relationship with the dollar, it will be essential for the European countries to move towards American labour laws — [Interruption.] — American labour mobility, social security and attitudes to work?

I thank my hon. Friend for the first part of that supplementary question. Part of the strength of the dollar is due, of course, to the great strength of the American economy — particularly in the matters to which my hon. Friend refers — to the much lower public expenditure, the much better labour laws and, as the President said during his press conference, the fact that when it came to job creation it was individual workers, business people and entrepreneurs—not the Government—who created virtually every one of the 7 million, new jobs in the past two years.

As the sterling trade weighted index has fallen to a record low, will the Government now accept the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England and, more importantly, of the CBI, and join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS?

In the last day the dollar has reached a record high against sterling, against the French franc and the lira, and it has reached the highest figure for over 13 years against the deutschmark and for 10 years against the Swiss franc. All of that has occurred in the last day. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, joining the EMS would not help in the surge of the dollar against all European currencies. Nor would it mean that we would not have to apply some of the many financial disciplines. It would mean, I am afraid, that we should have less freedom of action to control our own monetary conditions.

Has my right hon Friend noticed that over a third of the employees of British Telecom have agreed to take part in the share option scheme in that company? Does she agree that that is proof positive that the ordinary person in this country wishes to belong to a capital-owning democracy?

Yes. The British Telecom share issue, which was the largest to be conducted on either side of the Atlantic, has been a great success, particularly for the 2 million people who purchased shares and for the people who work in BT. It is a success of capitalism in that it has spread genuine ownership more widely among our people.

As the Prime Minister is fond of lecturing us along the lines that the customer is always right and that if we have the right goods at the right price we shall be able to sell them, why does she continually complain that the customers who are buying dollars are mistaken in the value that they put on the pound?

I have just indicated that part of the strength of the dollar lies in the strength of the American economy, particularly in things which the hon. Gentleman would not like and would not be able to do. The other part arises from the high deficit and the high interest rates. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman would want our interest rates to be even higher.

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

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

In view of the large number of letters from special interest groups which my right hon. and hon. Friends receive constantly, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we here represent the whole nation and not sections of it?

I am aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends receive many letters. Of course, every group has the right to make its own representations. The Government have the duty to assess all the demands and their effect on the taxpayer. That is what we must do and we must represent the will of the majority.

Does the Prime Minister recall telling us last June that it was not right for the EC to raise a loan for budgetary purposes? If she still feels that, how does she explain the Government's recent decision to extend additional overdraft facilities to the Common Market, in view of the fact that in the last six months she has already made advance payments of £285 million to the EEC? Can she tell us how much the current overdraft will be and what conditions she has put on it?

In view of the Parliament's decision about the budget, the only way for the EC to carry on is to have a budget this year of one twelfth of what the budget was for last year. As that has not been enough to meet outgoings, particularly on some of the agricultural commitments, the monthly amounts have been brought forward and there are facilities to enable the EC to continue. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would wish it to be totally and utterly disrupted. That would give cause for great concern to our own people.

After Fontainebleau last year we were told that there was a new machinery that would iron out all the difficulties and that it was largely attributable to the negotiating genius of the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. Lady now answer these questions: how much is the overdraft, what are the conditions on it and does it not mean that we are paying for our own rebate?

No. The rebate this year will eventually come, as did the rebate for last year. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he thought the rebate for last year would not come, but it did come. The new regime cannot come into operation until details are laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it is not due to come into operation until 1 January 1986 and that all the orders must come before this House for approval first.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's strike action by teachers constitutes a grave dereliction of duty? Does it not further damage the reputation of the teaching profession and its claim to put first and foremost the interests of Britain's schoolchildren?

I agree with my hon. Friend. For teachers to pursue a pay claim at the expense of children in their care seems to us to be totally and utterly wrong.

Does the Prime Minister recall that when I wrote to her a month ago I asked what her response would be if, after interest rates had been raised to crisis level, the downward pressure on the pound continued? Would she care to answer that question now? Are there to be yet higher interest rates, or do we have to live both with the plunging pound and with record interest rates, which have failed to do their job?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). The hon. Gentleman tries to ignore half of the situation. Over the last day the dollar has reached a record high against almost all European currencies. Over the past month sterling has appreciated against all major currencies except the yen and the dollar. He knows full well that interest rates are designed to maintain strict monetary conditions. He is well aware also that it would be singularly unhelpful for me to answer any questions about future interest rates or intervention. He knows that that would be unhelpful. He knows that it would be totally wrong for me to do so and, therefore, my answer to him is no.

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

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

I welcome the announcement that was made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development of a further gift of 30,000 tonnes of grain to the Sudan. However, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the famine is by no means conquered and that much more aid will be necessary before the harvest in the autumn?

I am aware that my hon. Friend has recently returned from the Sudan. I am grateful to him for welcoming the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who was there at about the same time. The action that we have taken for the Sudan means that our aid to that country has reached about £13 million since the onset of the damaging drought conditions. We shall bear in mind the great privations that those in the Sudan are suffering, as well as what we are doing for Ethiopia. Many refugees are coming into the Sudan from Ethiopia. I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome to the Government's action.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that, notwithstanding the interruptions of her right hon. and hon. Friends a few moments ago in response to a supplementary question about the teachers' strike, parents are deeply worried about the current teachers' dispute, specifically in Scotland? Will she agree to an independent pay review, which seems to be a fair way of settling the problem? Does she accept that parents are worried because they do not want to see the same intransigence on the teachers' dispute as the Prime Minister has shown over the miners' strike and other industrial issues?

The teachers' pay claim is a minimum flate rate increase of £1,200 per teacher, which would cost about £600 million. All of that money would have to come from other taxpayers, other parts of education or other parts of the Government system. Teachers' pay has kept pace with inflation since 1979. The employers have offered them arbitration and they have refused. I see no reason for an independent inquiry.

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

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

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity of reading the forecast made yesterday by the London Business School, which says that the economy will grow by 3½ per cent? Will she say what impact that growth will have on employment, industry and exports?

My hon. Friend is correct. The latest economic forecasts show optimism about growth in 1985. This follows on 1984 when, in spite of the miners' strike, we had growth of 2½ per cent. In spite of the miners' strike, output rose. Employment rose by about 342,000 in the year to September 1984. Investment reached an all-time record. An optimistic forecast on top of that good record is excellent news.

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

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

Did the Prime Minister warn President Reagan, on her visit to America, that the overwhelming majority of the British people would regard any direct intervention or any proxy intervention by America in Nicaragua as a danger to world peace? Did she warn him that there would be no support from her Government because the British people realise that the support that is being sent to the Contras is contrary to all the interests of those in the Western world?

I made it perfectly clear that we and the Americans firmly support the Contadora process and will continue to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the proposition that it is better to lend to the EEC than to borrow from the IMF?

Yes. My hon. Friend makes his own point in his question.

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

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

Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has established herself very firmly in the minds of the populace, and even some sections of the media, as history's greatest misleader of the nation, will she choose to explain to the House today how she can ask Americans to stop supporting insurgents in Northern Ireland and yet, at the same time, give succour and support, directly and indirectly, to the Contras in Nicaragua to undermine a democratically elected Government?

In reply to the hon. Gentleman's very carefully rehearsed question, I repeat that I had occasion to thank both President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill and Members of Congress for the way in which they have done everything to stop funding coming from the United States of America to aid terrorism in Northern Ireland. I also made it perfectly clear, as I have repeated, that we stand firmly for the Contadora process. To add one little thing — which the hon. Gentleman is so anxious that I should do—we regard those democratic elections to which the hon. Gentleman has referred as actually flawed in the run-up to the election, for reasons which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has given many times.