asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the precautions taken to ensure the safety of nuclear warheads when they are in transit.

Before answering the question, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence regrets that he is unable to be present today because of his attendance at the meeting of the nuclear planning group.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the nuclear planning group the higher standards of safety required in the transport of nuclear weapons in the United States than in this country? Is that higher standard the reason why the details of the American safety precautions are lodged with the Library of Congress, while our own Government are unwilling to reveal any details to the House?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we have extensive safety precautions that have satisfied the present and all previous Governments. In considering the standards set, we can take some satisfaction in the fact that we have managed to transport United Kingdom nuclear weapons in this country in conditions of safety over a very long period. Nevertheless, we are not complacent, and that is why we keep the safety procedures under review.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the warheads themselves are safe, considerable danger is posed by those who seek to disrupt the convoys? Could anything be done to persuade those people to desist?

My hon. Friend is quite right. It is not responsible to seek to disrupt the movement of nuclear weapons.

While the warheads are disarmed and are therefore entirely safe to travel by road, rail and air, are not those who seek to suggest otherwise doing serious damage to public safety?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The safety record, which has endured over a long period, certainly vindicates his point.

What are the implications for the transit of nuclear warheads to and from Greenham Common of any delay in the construction of the Newbury bypass?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to training exercises. As we have made clear, live warheads are not carried during cruise missile training runs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Psychological Society has today confirmed the safety of the methods to which he has referred, and that the people of Leicester are much more reassured by what my right hon. Friend has said today than they are by the antics of the city council in putting up "nuclear-free" signs?

I am not intimately familiar with the activities of the British Psychological Society, but I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments and for praying that society in aid.

We quite understand why the Secretary of State is not here. We understand that there is a very important meeting in Brussels and we do not object to the right hon. Gentleman's absence. However, will the Minister of State assure us that when the right hon. Gentleman returns he will make a statement to the House about what happened at that meeting? The House is often given no information about such matters despite the fact that hon. Members on both sides wish to debate the issues.

Those matters relate to a later question, but the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is normal practice to issue a communiqué. I am sure that one will be issued on this occasion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have tried to look into these matters are satisfied that safety precautions are adequate? Will he consider issuing something like a child's guide for those of us who find some of the technical matters involved difficult, so that we may convince even Opposition Members that the safety precautions are adequate?

The simplest guide that I can give my hon. and learned Friend is that we have made it clear that the most rigorous precautions are taken, as a result of which we have an accident-free record that has lasted for a long time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the future fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force.

Industry completed the feasibility study into the viability of a collaborative European fighter aircraft programme last month. The reports of the study are now being evaluated nationally and internationally. EFA Defence Ministers will review those reports and consider the way ahead at a meeting in Rome, probably in mid-May.

Will my hon. Friend go a little further and give some definite information that I can pass to the 16,000 aerospace workers in Greater Preston, who are worried about the future of their jobs? Should they be looking elsewhere already, or shall we get a positive decision on the EFA?

I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a great deal more information now. I see no reason why he should start scaring his constituents and others who work at the factories concerned. The project is progressing as we would have expected. It is extremely complicated and I just hope that when we meet in Rome it will be possible to agree on the next steps forward.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that international collaboration, which we are always seeking, could be between the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain? If France does not want to participate on the terms that those four countries are setting, it will have to think again, as we must have an urgent decision as soon as possible.

It is correct that, as part of the studies into the successor aircraft for the Phantom and Jaguar, we are examining several options, which includes a national one. My hon. Friend has mentioned one route which could be taken. The Government's present objective is to make the project work on a five-nation basis if we can.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the future policy of the Ministry will be to encourage real competition and enterprise in the United Kingdom aircraft industry? Will he confirm that the £60 million saved for the taxpayer and the Ministry of Defence by the successful competitive tender of Short Brothers for the Royal Air Force basic trainer shows clearly that there should never again be a monopoly of supply to the Ministry of Defence?

I agree that we have just had a successful competition for the RAF trainer. When talking about aircraft as complicated, expensive and advanced as the European fighter aircraft, however, the competition is much less easy to achieve.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the objective of translating the five-nation operational requirement into an operational aeroplane is wholly laudable, it is necessary to keep productive facilities in Britain fully employed? In that regard, if the decision is delayed further, will he consider at the very least ordering a further batch of Tornado aircraft?

My hon. Friend always speaks wisely on these matters. We have considerable and close regard to the workload at the relevant British Aerospace factories. I believe that delay beyond a certain point would not be acceptable.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be regrettable if delays continued and we ended up in 1995 with an American fighter aircraft bought off the shelf?

I hope that that would not be possible, but one has to be completely realistic. It might occasionally be better to buy abroad, but the Government's record on placing business at home is extremely good.

Do the options to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier include the possibility of the development of the P120?

The P120 aircraft is being considered under the national option.

When the Secretary of State referred to the Short's contract he said that it had been awarded on the basis of the lowest tender. May we take it that that will be the criterion for the award of future defence contracts?

It is likely that in all or most cases the two prime criteria of operational performance and cost will be at the forefront of our minds when we reach these decisions. However, we made it clear in that particular competition that the issue of jobs and other matters must also be considered.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when he orders the new Royal Air Force fighter that sometimes it is unwise to change the engine and engine mountings of an aeroplane, because it can have disastrous flying results, as every pilot knows.

All parties to the present EFA agreement agree that a new engine will need to be developed for the aircraft.

Is not the successful tender of Shorts for the RAF trainer aircraft just a good example of why it was Ulsterised or nationalised at one time?

I do not think that the two points hang together.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm, if only to reassure my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), that he and his fellow Ministers will not allow the French to pursue their standard tactics of delaying a decision until their own product is available?

A lot of reference has been made to delay. I do not find that delay exists at the moment. I have made it clear that if there are signs of continuing delay and it is clear that there would be disadvantages from that, we would have to take action in other directions.

Is the Minister aware that we would regard the national option as the least desirable, that there is a great deal more to be said for long production runs with international collaboration and that, if necessary, and perhaps even preferably, we should work with our Tornado partners, with whom we have had a great deal of experience in these matters?

Leaving aside the hon. Gentleman's last point, I am delighted to find that he agrees with both me and the Government on this occasion. It is an unusual occurrence.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals for a European anti-ballistic missile system.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals for a European anti-ballistic missile system.

No such proposals have been made or received by the British Government.

If it is true that Britain and Germany have been saved during the past 40 years by the concept of mutually-assured destruction, why is there a need for Europe to back research into costly and speculative star wars mania?

The main objective of the strategic defence initiative is to enhance deterrence. Deterrence has kept the peace in Europe for the past 40 years.

Will the Minister confirm that the United States of America is attempting to persuade Europe to participate in star wars, that in Germany in particular they regard the American proposal for star wars as wholly undermining the strategy of mutually-assured destruction, and that the proposal is destabilising and likely to escalate the arms race?

I read reports of what Chancellor Kohl said last week and I do not think that the hon. Lady understands the German position. Participation in research is the only activity which is contemplated. We have made it clear that we wish to participate in that research. The details of that have yet to be worked out.

Does the Minister agree that any successful development of anti-ballistic missile defences in Europe would not be proof against cruise-type missiles or nuclear weapons delivered by shorter range and battlefield systems? In those circumstances, would not the development of star wars technology leave Europe more, rather than less, vulnerable to nuclear attack?

If the interpretation of ballistic missiles is missiles which leave the atmosphere, the hon. Gentleman is right. But, of course, if we can produce a completely effective defence system against such missiles, we shall reduce the risk to Western countries.

The Minister should try to answer the excellent questions put by my hon. Friends. President Reagan's speech has turned the entire Western nuclear strategy on its head, and the Government realise that very well. Does the Minister accept that the Opposition approve of much of the Foreign Secretary's speech a few weeks ago, and that we deplore the expatriate neurosis shown by Richard Perle when he came to London to address some loony Right meeting? Will the Minister say clearly that he deplores the Perle speech and the American initiative in these matters?

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said. All of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech rested on the now, I hope, well known four points of Camp David. I noticed a moment ago that the right hon. Gentleman disagreed when I said that the strategic defence initiative had as its main objective the enhancement of deterrence. I am happy to repeat the third point agreed at Camp David, which was that the overall aim is to enhance, not to undercut, deterrence.

Is not the SDI intended, if it proves successful, to provide a global defence against ballistic missile attack? Is it not true that a space-based, orbital defence system would be able to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost, and in the ballistic and trajectory phase, and that that would enhance deterrence by reducing the risk of pre-emptive attack, including attack against Europe, especially by strategic systems and by intermediate range ballistic missiles?

My hon. Friend's interpretation of the concept of the SDI is right. We all recognise that these are still early days, and that research must be carried out. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was investigating the various strategic implications of the new proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made an estimate of the effect on employment in the United Kingdom that will result from the introduction of the Trident missile system.

The British Trident programme is expected to create an extra 17,000 direct jobs and 13,000 indirect ones during the peak years of the project, with a total of 170,000 man years of direct employment in the United Kingdom and 130,000 indirect man years over the programme as a whole.

Will the Minister confirm that in the five peak years of Trident expenditure commencing in 1988, £1 in £4 of the major procurement defence budget will go to Trident in America, and that that will prejudice essential expenditure in our conventional defence industry? If he is not prepared to cancel Trident on defence grounds, will he consider cancelling it on the ground of the impact that it will have on jobs in Britain?

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would at least have welcomed the good news about job creation. I have no idea where he gets his figures from. The proportion of the equipment budget that will be taken at peak is estimated at 11 per cent. Therefore, in no way can £1 in £4 go to America.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only decision that we must take on Trident is whether Europe needs an independent nuclear deterrent, since there can be no ultimate guarantee that a future American Administraton would come to the defence of Europe? Will he confirm that the Trident system is cheaper in real terms than Polaris?

The main reason for having Trident is to make our contribution to the policy of deterrence which has been so effective during the 40 years since the second world war. In the remote, hypothetical event of Western Europe being isolated, clearly Trident and the French nuclear deterrent would have a special part to play.

If going ahead with the Trident missile would destroy jobs rather than creating them, would the Minister still go ahead with the programme?

The hon. Gentleman will have to find another opportunity to explain what is behind his question. I have given a clear answer as to the number of jobs that the programme will create.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that of the jobs that will be created in Scotland many of them will be at Coulport, the base where Trident submarines will be, even though that has been declared a nuclear-free zone?

Yes, and I hope that the declaration by the local authority will be ignored.

Will the Minister take into account the reports in last night's "News at Ten" of allegations that are emerging from America concerning the gross profiteering of General Dynamics in respect of the Trident programme in the United States? Will the Minister take the necessary steps to assure the House that the cost of the gross inflation tactic being used will not be borne by the British taxpayer in the foreseeable future?

The largest part of the expenditure on the submarine element of the Trident programme will fall in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution to the cost of security at RAF Molesworth has been made so far by the United States Government.

None. The costs of the current development works and security operation at RAF Molesworth are being borne by the United Kingdom as part of its host nation responsibilities to NATO.

Cannot the Minister tell the House what will be the total cost of security at Molesworth to the British taxpayers and ratepayers? Will he anticipate what will be the cost of maintaining security during the Easter vigil next week? Does he not believe that the American Government, as it is their base and their weapon, should make some contribution towards security costs?

No figures are available, but, in terms of the apportionment of future costs, infrastructure costs will be shared as between NATO and the United States national programme and the United Kingdom will be responsible for the cost of road access into the site and utilities. As to costs that we might incur in protecting the base because of possible Easter demonstrations, we are determined to defend the integrity of the base.

Whoever contributes to the cost of security at Molesworth, is my hon. Friend aware that it is essential to safeguard the amenities of the citizens and residents in the area? Is he aware that they are also entitled to their own rights, and that they wonder how Monseigneur Bruce Kent would like it if they disrupted, and kicked up hell during, his church services?

I endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. Many hon. Members are concerned that the Easter marches will not be disturbed. We are concerned that the rights of local residents during Easter are maintained and that the Ministry of Defence police are not disturbed and have a happy and pleasant Easter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on construction work being carried out under the auspices of his Departmnt in the Falkland Islands.

There are two major related projects in the course of construction, the first is the building of a new international airport and associated facilities at Mount Pleasant, together with a road linking it to Port Stanley, and the second is additional facilities for the garrison adjacent to the new airport. Construction is on schedule for the runway to be available for limited use as from May of this year and for the airport to be fully operational early in 1986. Work started on the additional facilities for the garrison in December 1984; progress to date has been good, and completion is expected in early 1987.

I am grateful for that answer. The Select Committee described civilian use of the airport as a matter of urgency, and the Shackleton report said that it was a priority, so why have no proposals been put forward for such use of the airport? The Government have refused any subsidy for civilian use of the airport. Who does the Minister expect to operate from Mount Pleasant airport, and when does he expect the civilian flights to start operating?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are trying to achieve the earliest possible initial operating capability so that, in particular, we can rotate our forces, using wide-bodied aircraft rather than the Hercules air bridge. There are good cost advantages in doing so. The requirement is to ensure that during the period of the initial operating capability there is the most limited possible utilisation of the airfields so that the works can be completed. Once they are finished, it is our intention to make the fullest possible civilian use of the airfield facilities.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of the appointment of the first Royal Air Force officer as commander of the Falkland Islands garrison to comment on the remarkable inter-service co-operation that has been achieved on the Falkland Islands?

My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. I confirm that it is a first-class example of the tri-service co-operation which was evident during the period of conflict and which has continued very much in peace time.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking about section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act.

The review of section 10 is continuing, but I am as yet unable to say when it will be completed.

Is the Minister aware that his answer is word for word almost the answer that he gave to me a year ago, and that his answer then referred to an answer that he gave the previous year? Is he further aware that section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act places a veto on any legal action for negligence by any service man who happens to be severely disabled, or by his relatives if he is killed, and that it is wrong that the Act should prevent service men or their relatives from taking such action? The matter is so simple that it requires consideration, not for two years, but for just one hour.

The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a simple matter, but the fact is that section 10 has been found to be satisfactory by successive Governments ever since the Government of Mr. Attlee put it on the statute book. Therefore, there must be very good reasons why this piece of legislation is thought to be in the interests of service men as a whole. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the fact that the review has taken some time does not reflect any lack of interest in the matter on the part of the Government, but reflects the real complexity of the issues that we are considering.

Nevertheless, is the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) not right to use Parliament as the place to try to bring these matters to a satisfactory conclusion from his point of view? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to express his surprise, if he was aware of this, that while the right hon. Gentleman rightly tries to change the law in Britain, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is a member of the shadow Cabinet and the official Opposition spokesman on defence, has apparently seen fit to sign an early-day motion which clearly calls for the breaking of the law? Is that not shocking?

I note what my hon. Friend says, but, happily, I do not believe that there is any question of negligence or damages under section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures will be taken by his Department following the conclusions of the recently-published report by the Management and Personnel Office on Government purchasing.

Action documents have been prepared and will be submitted to Ministers shortly. It is still too early to say what changes may be made in the organisation or management of our procurement branches as a result of this process.

Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to simplify Government purchasing procedures, and so encourage small firms to play their part in achieving savings?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We are doing everything possible in this regard. Our competition policies allow greater opportunities than ever before for small firms, and 40,000 copies of the booklet "Selling to the Ministry of Defence" have been distributed. We are relaxing our specifications wherever appropriate.

In avoiding conflicts of interest in Government purchasing, what role will the new Chief of Defence Procurement play in vetting and awarding contracts to his friends in the Defence Manufacturers Association, in which he was until recently a senior office bearer? Why was it that while still an arms salesman the new Chief of Defence Procurement spent a large part of last year hawking the possible Government franchise for the royal dockyards around his friends in the Defence Manufacturers Association?

Having been chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association, Mr. Levene is extremely well qualified for the job of Chief of Defence Procurement and he has an outstanding record in the private sector. I emphasise that he has severed all connections with his former companies and has divested himself of all shareholdings. Arrangements have been made within the Department to ensure that Mr. Levene will have no access to the Department's business with his former companies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that often the best gamekeepers are ex-poachers? Is it not, therefore, interesting that the Opposition have never said that Mr. Levene will not make a good Chief of Defence Procurement?

Yes, Sir. The shooting metaphor is well known and apposite in this case. We spend about £1 million an hour on defence procurement. Only a small improvement in our purchasing through Mr. Levene's involvement is needed to more than recoup his salary.

In relation to Government purchasing, are not the Government concerned about the activities of Messrs Aish and Co. of Poole and Messrs Dowty Rotol and Co. of Cheltenham, because both those companies fired employees who refused to keep quiet about cheating by the MOD over defence contracts? Does the Minister intend to intervene and personally secure the position of those two employees who were serving the national interest?

I have looked into both those cases personally. I visited Dowty about a week ago and raised the matter. Negotiations with both companies are proceeding. In the latter case, the Ministry of Defence police are examining papers.

Will it be this report on Government purchasing, or a separate one, which will identify responsibility for the disastrous position over the Nimrod aircraft and sort everything out as quickly as possible?

I have already acknowledged in the House that the question of the Nimrod AEW is not a matter about which our Department or Defence Ministry contractors should be particularly proud.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his attempts to try to justify the Levene appointment—in which he does not believe—are frankly pathetic? The real problem is that there is a basic difference between business and Government ethics. That is why we totally object to the attempt to bring into Government an arms salesman — no doubt a very good one — when the relationship between Government and defence manufacturers, at the best of times, is so close and symbiotic.

It is pathetic that the Opposition are not prepared to support the payment of a relevant and attractive salary to ensure that we bring into Government the people whom we believe will do a first-class procurement job.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a decision on the purchase of the light support helicopters specified in AST 404.

Following recent exercises, including Exercise Lionheart last autumn, the Army's requirements for helicopter support are being reviewed. Until that review is complete, I regret that decisions on AST 404 will remain in abeyance. Meanwhile, my Department is in discussion with Westland about other possible Ministry of Defence orders.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not wrong that the Army can change its specification at such a late stage? Is it not intolerable that companies—such as Westland Helicopters—which have tendered in good faith can be let down because the Army is again changing its requirements?

I understand the reaction that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of the company, but I think he should realise that the staff target is at a very early stage and that it would be strange if one were to force on any of the armed forces something which did not meet its requirements. The Army feels that it may need a larger helicopter, with a greater payload, in the interests of battlefield mobility, and it is now examining that.

Can the Minister say when the review will be completed? In view of the criteria that he used for the PC9, will he accept that at present the WG30 is 40 per cent. cheaper than the super Puma and 30 per cent. cheaper than the Black Hawk, and that, terms of jobs at Westland and the future of that company, an early decision is needed?

As the Army has not confirmed its requirements, and as it is not certain that finance is available, the matter of choice between the various aircraft has not yet arisen.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he understands that most of us are speaking, not on behalf of the company, but on behalf of constituents who work in the company? Will he give a further assurance that he will keep in the closest possible contact not only with the Department of Trade and Industry, but with the Department of Employment so that he can understand the implications of this order not being awarded to Westland at the earliest possible opportunity?

I am fully aware of these matters. I am working closely with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, and we will come to a decision as soon as we can, but, in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I must say that the decision is likely to be some months away.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a worrying feature here is the change in the staff requirement at a late stage? Will he look at procedures whereby staff requirements are drawn up in order to ensure that industry is not too often put into this difficult position?

As I said a few moments ago, we cannot expect the armed services to take something which they do not want. They have seen fit to review their requirements. I should also say that the WG30 in its present condition will not meet the staff target, and would do so only with the advanced engineering gearbox and the new Rolls-Royce motor, and that by itself will cause some delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of maintaining the British Army of the Rhine; if he has any plans to reduce it; and if he will make a statement.

As I told my hon. Friend on 13 November 1984, the cost of the British Army of the Rhine is estimated to be some £1,796 million in 1984–85 at 1984–85 Estimates prices. The Government have no plans to reduce BAOR.

In the light of constraints on the defence budget, will my hon. Friend reconsider the prospects for returning to the traditional British policy of not maintaining a standing army on the mainland of Europe?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are part of a collective alliance, and that our NATO Allies and friends expect us to contribute in the way that we do—and we do so, I think, extremely successfully and cost-effectively—to safeguard and preserve deterrence in a key element of the central front.

Will the Minister assure us that the Trident programme will have no effect on the availability of resources to BAOR?

As we have said many times, the Trident programme is part of the total defence programme. What is spent on Trident cannot be spent elsewhere, but we believe that the expenditure on Trident is a way in which we can achieve an important continuation of our deterrent capability.

Is it not a fact that BAOR is already the worst equipped of all the major armed forces in the NATO central front, having less artillery than the Dutch Army, and fewer tanks than the French or Germans? Is it not inevitable that the Trident programme will make the situation massively worse in this vital area of Britain's defence capability?

No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are carrying through one of the most important re-equipment programmes of BAOR, and that re-equipment programme directly reflects the fact that the Government have increased defence expenditure by approximately one fifth in real terms, while the Opposition said at the last election that they intended substantially to reduce conventional defence expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce his proposed changes in the management structures of Her Majesty's dockyards; and if he will make a statement.

We intend to complete our deliberations as soon as possible. Assuming that this results in radical proposals for change, there will then be a period of consultation before a decision is taken on future arrangements for the royal dockyards.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the need for an early decision, in view of the fact that delay creates not only rumour and speculation, but, increasingly, unease among employees at the dockyards?

We are aware of the need for an early and speedy decision. The deliberations have taken longer than we had imagined. The original uncertainty was caused by the leak of the Levene report at Rosyth.

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

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.

In her weekend speech the Prime Minister referred to various critics of the Government's policy as cuckoos. Will she explain whether that term is now extended to the growing number of critics in her own party? Will she also explain whether she feels that characterising the Government's critics as cuckoos is consistent with the language of reconciliation to which she has made recent references?

The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is no. We have the occasional grouse, but nothing else.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most welcome aspects of the Budget is the Government's intention to simplify the tax and social security systems, so enabling people at last to understand how they can interact, and enabling us at last to eliminate the unemployment trap? Will she ensure that this necessary and fundamental reform is pushed ahead without delay?

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. We shall try to push ahead as fast as we can. It is particularly important in that it will help many employers to take on more young people than they are doing at present.

There are now more than 1 million unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds in Britain. Apparently the Prime Minister will be seeing 25 of them at 10 Downing Street this afternoon. When she meets them, will she look them in the eye and honestly say to them, as she said on Saturday in Newcastle:

"A bright and confident future beckons"?

I look forward to seeing a number of young people on a private visit to No. 10. I shall indeed point out that the economy is expanding, that investment is at an all-time record, that standards of living are at an all-time high and that we are making great extensions to the youth training scheme, from which I hope they will benefit. I shall also have there a number of people who will, I hope, be able to answer their questions and be of practical assistance.

That cuts no ice, and it cuts no dole queues, either. Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that until she makes radical changes in economic policy—as many, including sensible people in her own party, are advising—there will be no hope of offering real jobs to young people? Will she have the courage to say that direct to them this afternoon?

No, because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He does not deny that output is at an all-time record and that investment is at an all-time high. I assume that he supports the youth training scheme. We shall get more jobs when we have more people producing goods and services which everyone will buy. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman knows how to do it, perhaps he will start a business.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the interrelation between taxation and the social security system. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that while the reviews which have been undertaken aim at gaining better value for money within a £40 billion budget, at least as important will he an attempt on behalf of the Government to pay more to the most deserving people within society, while reviewing benefits which arguably are being paid to those who are in less need?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has a major review of social services under way. That review will be published, and it will be for the House to debate it. In the meantime, I take account of what my hon. Friend has said. I think he was saying that quite a number of people seem to get perhaps more than they need, while others, who are most deserving, perhaps do not get sufficient.

Following the massacre in South Africa at the weekend, does the Prime Minister agree that 25 years on from Sharpeville all the cosmetic improvements in that country do not hide the fundamental evil and injustice of apartheid? Apart from lecturing the South African ambassador, what proposals has she to help end the systematic oppression of the majority of the population?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a statement and called in the ambassador of South Africa to make it clear that we were gravely concerned at the events on the anniversary of Sharpeville and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to reaffirm once again that one cannot distinguish between people on the basis of colour. We support and uphold the resolution of the United Nations. I think it particularly sad and deplorable that this event came just at a time when other things seemed to be moving. For example, it was only a few days earlier that we had heard that the policy which we totally deplored of forced removals had been suspended. That was good news. Therefore, we were particularly concerned about the shootings.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that fires are still raging in the Galapagos Islands and that on Isabela 500 giant tortoises are now seriously at risk? [Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches may find this amusing, but I assure them that it is a serious matter. May I repeat the question for the benefit of the Prime Minister? Is she aware of the fires in the Galapagos Islands, and is she aware also that on Isabela 500 giant tortoises are at risk? The Government of Ecuador have asked for international assistance. In view of the close links between this country and the Galapagos Islands, what British Government resources will the Prime Minister make available to rescue the giant tortoises and other endangered species?

I am very much aware of the feeling in the House and elsewhere about this matter. We shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that unanimity is rare in politics? Will she, therefore, undertake that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) completes his review of the financing of local government, and the equivalent review north of the border is completed, we will move to a rapid solution of the local government finance problem, regardless of whether there is total agreement on any one solution?

Those studies, both on the rating system and on the reform of local government finance, are under way. I hope that we shall be able to come to an agreed solution. My hon. Friend is right. If everyone sticks to his own pet scheme, we shall not get anywhere. I hope that we shall be able to bring forward proposals which will command sufficient support to put them through.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that when, later this afternoon, she meets the young unemployed from Merseyside, they are not likely, because of their bitter experience of many years of unemployment, to believe that there is an expanding economy? Does she agree with the view expressed by Lord Alport yesterday in the Daily Telegraph, that the Conservative party is now a faction and not a real Conservative party, or is she prepared to accept the advice of her right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who suggested that the time had come for a change in policy to begin to deal with unemployment?

We shall continue the policies announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and enlarged upon during the several Budget debates, which were well received and won excellent majorities in the House upon their conclusion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the teaching profession wishes to enjoy a higher level of public esteem the best thing that its members can do is to end this damaging action, which is hitting the interests of the worst-off children, and get back to work full-time?

Yes. I thought that Lady Warnock made interesting remarks during the Dimbleby lecture, pointing out that if teachers act in this way they will forfeit their prestige and the esteem in which they have always been held.

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

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

Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read the report of today of the Rating and Valuation Association, which reveals that the average rate rise in England and Wales for the coming financial year will be 9 per cent.? Has the right hon. Lady noticed that this has happened even with all the paraphernalia of rate-capping targets, penalties, grant-related expenditure assessments and similar controls which her Government have introduced? Will the right hon. Lady now have the honesty to admit that the real reason for such a large increase is the reduction in rate support grant to London boroughs, from 61 to 48 per cent., under her Government? Will the right hon. Lady tell the ratepayers that she is responsible for their rate increases?

I have not read that report. I heard a comment from an hon. Member from a sedentary position that our great problems with rating are centred on Scotland. If councils' spending had continued at its previous rate of increase, it would now be £4 billion higher. The growth in councils' spending has dramatically slowed over the past five years, increasing by no more than it did in an average single year in the 1970s. In fact, ratepayers have a great deal for which to thank the Government for reducing Government expenditure. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take notice of the fact that the average precept is 30p higher under Labour county councils than it is under Conservative county councils.

Is my right hon. friend aware that there was warm applause in the country as well as in the hall for her weekend speech, when she emphasised the importance of the wealth creators in our society and the fact that responsibility for law and order is not restricted to the police and the Government? As the best hope for this country's future lies in my right hon. Friend's policies and philosophies, will she and her Ministers continue to repeat this message loudly and clearly throughout the country?

It is a message which most people understand, because it is common sense that one must have policies which pursue the creation of wealth, before that wealth can be distributed or more jobs can be created. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question.

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

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

As dental charges will increase from 1 April to £17—which means that 100 per cent. of the costs will have to be borne by the patient—and as 40 per cent. of all the extra costs above £17, to a maximum of £115, will have to be paid by the patient, will the Prime Minister give advice to those people whose income is only slightly above the supplementary benefit level, the occupational pensions allowance and the family income supplement on how they must pay these extra charges?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, 46 per cent. of chargeable treatment is given free and those who pay contribute on average 60 per cent. of the cost, which is less than the maximum charge. The hon. Gentleman's question implies that the increase in charges will result in a reduction in the number of people taking dental treatment. That is not so. The number of courses of dental treatment is up from 27 million in 1979 to 31 million now. I think that most people would put dental treatment fairly high on their list of priority spending.

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

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

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the apparent willingness of the British Government, in company with the minority of countries, such as Greece and Denmark, to stand aside from developments in the European Community designed to make it more effective? Is this not a dangerous tendency? Will my right hon. Friend instruct her Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to promise full support to the Community in its proposals for progress for the benefit of us all, and not to drag their feet?

We have taken a leading part in all deliberations on the Community, which are resulting in a much better financial structure and a much more realistic policy for agriculture. As my hon. Friend knows, we are now attempting to persuade the Community to complete the internal market and take a number of steps towards freeing trade, which will be of great help to this country.