asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many cars his Department has purchased over the last two years; and whether they were produced in the United Kingdom.

I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is on an official visit to Denmark. Over the past two financial years—April 1983 to March 1985 —we purchased 4,411 cars and car-type utility vehicles, and 96 per cent. of this total, or 4,244 vehicles, were produced in the United Kingdom.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a distinction between what is produced in the United Kingdom and what is manufactured in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that priority must be given in future purchasing to the United Kingdom content of vehicles?

Yes. We buy British vehicles whenever that is sensible, economic and consistent with our international obligations. We have a first-class record of support for the United Kingdom motor industry. I note my hon. Friend's comment about content. There is a problem and we are paying increasing attention to it

What on earth is the Ministry of Defence doing with more than 4,000 cars?

It is a substantial Ministry.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the superior and good example set by his Ministry in purchasing so many British cars? I wish that other Departments would follow that example. May I reinforce the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, (Mr. King) in saying that it is important to buy British cars with United Kingdom content?

Increasingly we are taking into account United Kingdom content in our purchasing.

The Minister's answer was carefully drafted, and I have no doubt that he is pleased with its reception, but why is it necessary for Ministers, the top brass and top civil servants, to drive around in Ford Granadas, which are mainly, if not completely, made in West Germany? Do not officials in the Foreign Office and in almost every other Government Department ride in British-made cars?

When the Ford Granadas were chosen, they were considered to be the best value for money. When there is a model change in two years’ time, we shall evaluate other contenders.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of the arms control unit in his Department.

The defence arms control unit was formed on 2 January. It has combined and strengthened existing civilian and military expertise within the Ministry of Defence in this area. It provides the focus within the Ministry for advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on how best to support the Government's policy of balanced and verifiable arms control, on which the lead responsibility continues to be with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

How can we place any confidence in the work of the unit or in statements made in the last year by the Secretary of State and other Defence Ministers when clearly they have misled the House and the country about the deployment by NATO of battlefield nuclear weapons?

I cannot accept that. The position is clearly reflected in the communique that was issued after the latest meeting of the nuclear planning group. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that perfectly consistent with the answers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my colleagues on the Front Bench have given.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important to maintain the closest co-ordination with the Foreign Office on this matter? Would he like to say something about the co-ordination that there is between the unit and similar units working within the ambit of the Foreign Secretary?

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. There is a need for close co-ordination, and I can assure him that it takes place extremely closely at both ministerial and official level.

Is it not a fact that this so-called arms control unit is a cosmetic exercise? What arms are being controlled? In fact, the Government are engaged on a massive escalation of nuclear power in purchasing Trident. They have accepted cruise missiles at Greenham Common and probably at Molesworth. They are embarking on the modernisation of British battlefield nuclear weapons. What on earth are we talking about in terms of arms control?

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong when he refers to a cosmetic arrangement. I thought that the Opposition Front Bench and other Opposition Members would welcome the constructive contribution that is being made for the first time by the Ministry of Defence in arms control, under this Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Labour Government could have taken such an initiative, but made no such attempt to have an equivalent unit in the Ministry of Defence, which the public expect? Is the unit in touch with Washington? It is vital that we tell the American Government that they must hold to SALT 2 although it is unratified.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the defence arms control unit keeps in close contact with opposite numbers in Washington as well as in the Foreign Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British citizens are employed in the armed forces or otherwise by his Department.

That information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate time and effort. Each candidate for Her Majesty's armed forces, and for the Civil Service, must meet certain nationality and residence rules in order to be eligible for consideration for a post and each case is individually examined at the time of application.

I understand that the Ministry of Defence has more than half a million United Kingdom-based staff apart from its overseas staff. We should be able to ascertain how many British and foreign citizens are employed, directly or indirectly, by the Ministry of Defence. Will my hon. Friend assure me that every effort will be made to ensure that British citizens are given every consideration when they apply for posts that are held by foreign citizens, so that the maximum number of British staff are employed by the Ministry?

My hon. Friend's figure is not right. We are talking about 500,000 employees overall—service men and those on the civilian side, both here and abroad. There is no management or other requirement to provide a global nationality breakdown of service personnel and civil servants. However, I shall take into account my hon. Friend's point about United Kingdom citizens. Let me take West Germany as an example. We employ about 25,000 locally there, and probably the vast majority are German.

How many British citizens or other citizens are likely to be deployed on the new aircraft carrier, or through deck cruiser, the Ark Royal? Will the Minister confirm, or deny, that, after tens of millions of pounds have been spent on that aircraft carrier, no troops, sailors or aircraft will be specifically designated for it?

In terms of our planning and the size of the fleet, we believe that there is a sensible equation between the numbers that we shall employ in our Navy and the numbers that we shall require.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost per Falkland Islander of defence expenditure in connection with the Falkland Islands for each of the next five years.

The provision for Falklands costs included in the defence budget is equivalent to £288,000 per Falkland Islander in 1985–86, £234,000 in 1986–87 and £156,000 in 1987–88. Funding thereafter will be determined in future public expenditure surveys.

Would not the Minister have thought that many of the Falkland Islanders would prefer a smaller sum than that to move elsewhere? Why is it so important to give such a sum of money to people in the Falkland Islands to maintain their traditional role in that area rather than to try to maintain the tradition in this country of full employment? If similar sums of money were spent in some of the areas of extremely high unemployment, would that not be far better and would we not protect the traditions of this country rather than waste the money in the Falklands?

Those hon. Members on both sides of the House who visited the Falkland Islands have been struck by the determination of those who live there to continue living under the British way of life. I do not regard this in any way as a possible waste or misuse of money. More than 250 British people lost their lives in the recovery of those islands, and I am certain that it would be quite unacceptable to the great majority of British people not to take steps to defend them thereafter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that all Conservative Members feel that the Secretary of State was absolutely right to mention the other day in the Falkland Islands that it was to the benefit of NATO that one member of NATO had shown the ability to back diplomacy with skilled and courageous use of force? At the same time, we should make it absolutely clear to the Argentines that the Falkland Islands are not a NATO base and that at present there is no intention of their being one.

It was a good indicator from this country as a NATO member that it made its own determination to protect the interests of British people wherever they might be and to ensure that British territory was not subject to invasion in any part of the world.

Is the Minister not aware that many thousands of people in the north of England will be absolutely outraged at the answer that he has just given? It costs about £200,000 per head to keep Falklanders in the Falkland Islands, yet young people in places such as the northern region have been forced to move to the south-east or the west midlands to try to find work. They could be maintained in their own areas in full-time employment —instead of suffering from 20 per cent. unemployment —for much less than we are frittering away on the Falkland Islands.

I am quite certain that many people in the north-east of England will clearly remember what it cost, both in human and financial terms, to repair the ravages in this country when peace broke down between 1939 and1945.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects civilian aircraft to be able to use the military airfield in the Falkland Islands.

To enable the remaining construction work to be completed as rapidly and as economically as possible between now and early 1986 when the airport becomes fully operational, the use of Mount Pleasant airport currently has to be limited to the following aircraft: wide-bodied aircraft owned by or chartered by the Ministry of Defence carrying service personnel; civilian passengers and priority freight; locally based light aircraft; and possibly the occasional civil charter flight. Once the airport becomes fully operational early next year, there will normally be no need to limit the frequency of either military or civil flights.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and appreciate that in the early support facilities such as buildings are necessarily extremely limited. Does his answer confirm—I hope that it does—that, in view of the massive and proper investment in this remarkable airfield, there will be no avoidable delay in making it available for civilian purposes when that is possible?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I have explained, we are trying to ensure that the airfield is fully completed at the fastest possible rate. After that takes place early next year there will be no impediment, apart from overriding military requirements, to the civil use of the airfield.

Has not this military airfield been an extravagant abuse and use of public resources? Is it not true that had the Government offered each Falkland Islander £150,000 or £200,000—only one fifth of the amount of money which has been spent on the Falklanders in the last four years—they would all have sought to leave the Falkland Islands ^•and the British Government would not be faced with the prospect of defending an island that is quite indefensible? Why do the Government not review their position and face up to common sense?

As I said previously, there is no basis for saying that the Falkland Islanders would want to leave the way of life that they have chosen.

Just make them an offer.

Order.

Regarding the costs of the airport, it has the benefit of ensuring savings from the present cost of the air bridge, and also of giving us much greater flexibility on force levels as a result of the greater rapidity of reinforcement that we can achieve through the construction of the airfield.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members regard honouring our commitments to the Falkland islanders as a matter of honour?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am certain that that is the view, not only of Conservative Members, but of the overwhelming majority of British people.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on measures taken by his Department to prevent accidental nuclear war.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the measures taken by his Department to prevent accidental nuclear war.

The United Kingdom, the United States and France all have agreements with the Soviet Union to prevent accidental nuclear war. The relevant agreements for the United Kingdom are the British-Soviet Agreement on the Establishment of a Direct Communications Line —the British-Soviet hot line agreement of 1967— —and the 1977 Agreement on the Prevention of Accidental Nuclear War, Cmnd. 7072.

Does the Minister recall the words of the Secretary of State for Defence to the Defence Select Committee on 8 May, when he said that there was no precedent for the reduction of nuclear arms anywhere? Given that we are now in an age where the nuclear hair trigger is at its most dangerous, must we wait for a precedent before stepping back from that brink? Are we not, with increased research, moving nearer to it, which is in the opposite direction to the wishes of our country and to the other countries that he mentioned?

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that under the Government there has been a substantial reduction in NATO battlefield nuclear weapons, which is greater than that achieved by the Lib-Lab Government who preceded us.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest risk of accidental nuclear war would come about if government were entrusted to a party which had no discernible defence policy? Does he agree also that it would be a great tragedy if there were alliance Government, bearing in mind that their two wings have at least four discernible, different and wholly conflicting policies between them?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that one of the essential safeguards of the continuation of peace is the certainty of deterrence, which is ensured by the continuation of the present Government.

Is the Minister aware of the old maxim that what can happen, will happen? In view of that, why on earth are the Government increasing the risk of accidental nuclear war by deploying new nuclear weapons systems in the United Kingdom?

The facts are clear. What the hon. Gentleman fears will happen has certainly not happened during the past 40 years.

In a previous answer the Minister mentioned battlefield nuclear weapons. Will he try to clear up the considerable confusion between statements made to the United States Congress by Dr. Wagner about the decision to modernise British battlefield nuclear weapons, and the Government's statements in the House? Is it intended to replace the existing 155 mm atomic shell with a new atomic shell, which can be used and will be produced by the Americans, and which can also be adapted into a type of neutron bomb? What is the Government's position? Have they told the Americans one thing and the House another?

That is certainly not the case. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are not answerable for the statements made by Dr. Wagner or any other American official. I assure the right hon Gentleman that the previous answers which he and his colleagues have been given, which is that no decision has been taken to modernise British battlefield nuclear weapons, are the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the full-time and part-time Ulster Defence Regiment are Roman Catholics; and how these figures compare with those five years ago.

Between 2 and 3 per cent. of the Ulster Defence Regiment have declared their religion as Roman Catholic. Information on the position five years ago is not available, but it is probable that the proportion has not changed significantly since then.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the chances of cross-community acceptance of the UDR would be increased if more of its members were Roman Catholics, and that it is precisely because the IRA recognises that fact that it has been deliberately attacking Catholic members of the UDR in recent weeks?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We encourage volunteers from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, but it is most necessary to build up Catholic numbers. However, tragically, intimidation and brutal murders have undeniably had an effect on Catholic recruitment, and a particular brand of courage is required for Catholics to participate in the UDR.

Is the Minister aware that, contrary to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), what is exercising the minds of Catholics in Northern Ireland is not whether they should be members of the UDR but whether they can avoid being killed by members of the UDR— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does the Minister not recall the recent stories of convictions of members of the UDR for criminal offences and linking them with illegal Protestant paramilitary organisations? How does he think that such a tarnished organisation can possibly enhance the name and the role of the British Army?

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has gone over the top in this matter. There are about 6,500 members of the UDR, and only a very small proportion of them have had allegations brought against them. There is bound to be the occasional black sheep in any group of that size. The whole House and whole country should be deeply appreciative of all those involved in the UDR. They have served with considerable bravery, integrity and dedication.

Do not the court cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) in his hysterical supplementary question demonstrate the determination of the authorities to ensure that any crimes committed by members of the UDR are properly punished? Does not the fact that so many Roman Catholics who were members of the UDR have been murdered show a deliberate policy of the terrorists to intimidate Roman Catholics out of the UDR? Will the Ministry of Defence acquaint the House and the public with the extent of the Roman Catholic sacrifice?

My hon. Friend is right on all counts, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment on particular cases before they come to the courts. One is very conscious of the intimidation and the seeming picking off by terrorists of Catholic members of the UDR.

When will the Government face reality in regard to Northern Ireland and realise that the overwhelming majority of Catholics would no more dream of joining the UDR than of flying in the air? The reality is that they believe in a united Ireland, and that due to British imperialism theré will never be peace in that benighted country until Ireland is united.

The hon. Gentleman is at least consistent in his minority view.

Is the Minister aware that when anyone dies in Northern Ireland, whether it is a member of the UDR, a British soldier, a terrorist — however misled he may be — or an innocent civilian, that is a blow to their families, their friends and to everybody, and that we cannot but sympathise with them? That having been said, is the Minister aware of the utter alienation of the minority population in Northern Ireland from the UDR, partly because of its origins in the B Specials and partly because of its continuing conduct over the years in the treatment of individuals, whether they have been guilty of criminal offences or not?

Is the Minister also aware that the future of the UDR is one of the main issues under discussion between the British Government and the Government of the Republic, and that a sensible policy of trying to move away from having too much reliance on the UDR, together with a reduction in its numbers, would be far more effective in achieving peace in Northern Ireland than most other actions taken by the Government?

Once again the hon. Gentleman's views are consistent, and he frequently expresses them on the UDR. The Army and the UDR are required at all times to operate within the law.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the local overseas allowances of Property Services Agency staff stationed in Northern Ireland, West Germany or Gibraltar in comparison with those payable to airmen with the rank of sergeant or flight lieutenant; and if he will make a statement.

The overseas cost of living allowance for civil servants in the Property Services Agency or other Departments is known as foreign service allowance. Because of differing conditions of service and salary levels it is not directly comparable with the local overseas allowance paid to service men.

Local overseas allowance for the ranks mentioned varies between nothing and £2,248 per annum. Foreign service allowance for equivalent civilians varies between £220 per annum and £2,613 per annum. I have written to my hon. Friend with further full details.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, is he aware of the deep resentment that is felt by the armed forces, who are clearly at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts in similar positions? Is he also aware of the number of young officers and non-commissioned officers who have said that they will be leaving the services at the end of their present engagements? Will he ask that changes in the local overseas allowance should in future be treated more sympathetically and phased in more cleverly?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest, but there is no evidence to suggest that the reduction in the local overseas allowance in Germany has caused many of the younger officers and non-commissioned officers to give notice of their intention to leave. The overseas foreign service allowance paid to civil servants employed by the Property Services Agency and the Ministry of Defence is also subject to periodic review. The foreign service allowance in Germany was reviewed in November 1984. Substantial reductions were involved, which came into effect on 1 January 1985. The reductions in the local overseas allowance are being delayed by two months beyond the normal implementation date.

In answer to an earlier question about how many people are employed by the British Government abroad the Minister said that he did not know; he did not have a clue about how many people the Government employ. Now he tells us how much money the Government are spending on these people, although he does not know how many he has. If the Minister knows how much money the Government are spending, he ought to know how many British citizens are employed abroad.

The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully to questions and answers. The original question that was put to me related to the nationality of those we employ, not to the numbers. I made it quite clear that in the Ministry of Defence we employ about 500,000 people — about 330,000 in the armed forces and 170,000 civilians.

The last thing that I would wish to do is to accuse any of my right hon. or hon. Friends of complacency, and I do not. However, in view of my hon. Friend's answer a moment or two ago, may I ask him to have another look at the effect that the local overseas allowance may have in future upon the availability of both skilled and ordinary employees, particularly in the posting in west Germany. If there are no figures at the moment which prove that people will leave the services, will my hon. Friend carry out a survey to find out what are the attitudes that may lead to people leaving the services?

We shall keep the situation under review. There is a specific question on this point from the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), which will be answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. There was a reduction in the local overseas allowance for those serving in Germany, and this was not well received, but about 6,000 people benefited in almost all other postings, including the United States of America, Gibraltar, Hong Kong and Belize.

asked the Secretary of Stale for Defence whether he is considering any measures to improve the rate of retention of service personnel within the armed forces.

The present Government have implemented the recommendations in successive reports, of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Retention throughout the lifetime of this Government has to date been significantly better in the armed forces overall than it was immediately prior to May 1979. The services have in hand certain measures to improve the retention rates of particular categories of personnel.

In view of the very angry reaction from service men in Germany to the cuts in the local overseas allowance — a reaction of which all hon. Members have been made aware—is the Minister saying that what are real cuts in the living standards of those personnel will not lead to any problems over retaining key personnel in Germany?

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, we are all aware of the disappointment that was felt in Germany about the outcome of the LOA review. I remind the House, as my hon. Friend explained in the Adjournment debate on 20 May, that the LOA is not pay but is in addition to pay to compensate service men for the differential in the cost of living between the United Kingdom and overseas. When that differential narrows the LOA is reduced, and when it widens it is increased. It has to be seen in that light. The overall view in the three services across the world is that the LOA is an important protection for service men so that they know that when they are posted overseas they will not suffer a major reduction in take-home income because of having to bear the increased costs of the overseas postings to which they are sent.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the reduction of the LOA, particularly in BAOR—I have just returned from a visit there because my son is serving in that part of the world—has had a dreadful effect not only upon young officers but on skilled NCOs? Is he aware that these young people are likely to come out of the Army, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) said, as soon as their period of service is ended? Therefore, will my hon. Friend take up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) in a recent Adjournment debate and look at the possibility of providing further free transport to and from Germany and the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend has already kindly written to me on that point and I shall be sending him a considered reply. We are continually looking at the various allowances that are available to our service men to try to ensure that we give them, within the limits of justifiable public expenditure, the best possible conditions of service package. We shall continue to do that.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the things that keeps service men in the service is professional pride in their job? Does he realise that the Government's cost-cutting exercise—[Interruption.]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman speaks from personal experience.

Does the Minister realise that the present cost-cutting exercise undertaken by the Ministry of Defence has resulted in a reduction in training ammunition for the services and has meant that in many cases they are not able to afford the fuel for aircraft and military transport that is needed for effective training? What will the Minister do to ensure that there are reasonable professional standards in the services?

Judging by the enormous increase in real terms — 20 per cent. — under this Government, professional satisfaction among our service men is at a higher level than it was when the hon. Gentleman decided to come out of the services.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the marked increase in morale in all the armed forces since 1979, there has been some deterioration in the services in recent months, particularly among Army officers, and some disquiet about their future and that of other ranks? Is this not a matter of the gravest importance, into which we should look very carefully?

I can confirm that the Department, and Ministers as they go around the services, are very much aware of my hon. Friend's point. That is why we are continuing, with the principal personnel officers, to look for ways in which we can do our best to improve overall conditions of service for the armed services. Our record on service pay is altogether better than that of our predecessors.

Is it not the case that the rate of outflow of naval officers is reaching crisis proportions and that it is now the highest figure since the 1970s? Is he aware that in the recent Southampton incident, involving a collision, there was a direct relationship between the lack of experienced officers and the difficulties in which the ship became involved? Is it not arch complacency for the Government to say that officers are in good heart when they are leaving the Navy in such dramatic numbers?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is in a very poor position to accuse the Government of complacency. I remind him that in the financial year 1978–79, the last financial year of the Labour Government, premature voluntary retirements by men in the armed services had risen to 4·4 per cent., which is a record high over the last 10 years. This is in comparison with the last financial year 1984–85, for which the figure was 2·5 per cent.—a very substantially lower figure than when this Government came into office.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the proportion of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Warsaw pact defence expenditure devoted to producing chemical weapons and personnel trained to use them; and if he will make a statement.

It is not possible to isolate those elements of Warsaw pact defence expenditure which are related solely to chemical warfare. However, it is estimated that the Soviets now have some 300,000 tonnes of chemical warfare agents at their disposal, which is sufficient to cause death and incapacitation on a massive scale.

Is my hon. Friend also aware that 191 Soviet divisions have current training in this area, and that since we have no chemical weapons ourselves we need to look at this very carefully? What is my hon. Friend saying in response to the NATO supreme commander's calls for a specific response to this terrible challenge?

I can certainly confirm what my hon. Friend says about the very extensive training and equipping of Soviet forces with not merely a defensive capability, but an offensive chemical capability. As to the Government's policy, it was set out in the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), when she said:

"The facts are that Britain abandoned its chemical warfare capability in the late 1950s. There has been no change in Government policy since then, nor is any change now proposed. However, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to keep defence policy under review in the light of what my hon. Friend said about the massive Soviet capability in chemical weapons." —[Official Report, 10 January 1985; Vol. 70, c. 901.]

If that is an outline of the Government's policy, why did they not welcome the proposal made by Mr. Gromyko at the United Nations in 1982 when he put forward a detailed proposal suggesting that there be an end to the development, manufacture and deployment of chemical weapons, that existing stocks be destroyed under supervision, and that there be on the spot supervision to see that no further chemical weapons are developed? Why did the Government not welcome that?

The hon. Gentleman seems not to be aware that we have been engaged in continuing negotiations on the chemical warfare treaty, which would have the very desirable effect of banning these weapons worldwide. The Government have played a very active and positive role in trying to make progress in those negotiations. We have contributed a whole series of working papers on the vital issue of verification and enforceability, but as yet there is no detailed agreement on how the verification provisions of that treaty can be operated. However, it is very much the Government's intention to go on working constructively towards the banning of chemical weapons.

How do the Government intend to remedy the serious weakness that is posed to our troops in the central area in Germany?

As I have said to the House, it is not part of the Government's policy to give themselves an offensive chemical weapon capability, but it is very much part of our policy to ensure that we give our own forces the best possible defensive equipment, and that we invest considerable sums in ensuring that their defensive equipment is kept up to date.

Are the Government aware that Labour Members support the Government in their continuous efforts to try to get a ban on all manufacturing and deployment of chemical weapons? It is one aspect of the Government's policy which we fully support. Is the Minister also aware that there is considerable concern in the House that our major NATO ally, the United States, and its Administration, are still pursuing their policy of trying to get new chemical weapons developed for the United States forces in the NATO sphere? We urge Her Majesty's Government to continue to put pressure upon the United States Administration not to take that foolhardy course of action.

These are matters for the United States Administration. On this issue, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the President of the United States has recently set up a commission to advise himself on the policy way forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will be reporting on potential savings on his defence procurement policy.

The significant improvements in value for money which are resulting from our drive to extend competition in defence procurement have already been reported in this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates. Chapter 5 gives some notable examples, including the new Royal Air Force trainer, where the final price was as much as a third lower than the original estimate of what we might have had to pay. I also gave evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 11 December 1984.

All our recent experience clearly indicates that there are further and greater potential savings to be achieved from the continuing exercise of our competition policy.

Is my right hon. Friend confident that he can achieve the savings that are implicit in the Government's future expenditure plans?

Of course, no targets are set, but if present trends continue I hope for a very good result. It is significant that during the last month for which I have complete figures more than two thirds of new contracts by value were brought about through competition or priced otherwise by reference to market forces.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June 1985.

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

As one of the aims of the social security review is to simplify the system, why will the Prime Minister not establish a legal minimum wage and retain wages councils rather than subsidise employers through the new family credit scheme?

There is a consultative document about the future of wages councils, which has still to be decided. Evidence shows that if we set a legal minimum wage that tends to lead to increased unemployment.

When my right hon. Friend met Mr. Shamir, the Israeli Foreign Minister, this morning, did she stress Britain's total commitment to resolution 242 and to the right of Israel to exist within secure borders?

We referred to the Camp David agreement, which sets out explicitly that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people should be honoured. As my hon. Friend knows, we fully support resolution 242.

Can the Prime Minister explain why, in the social security proposals outlined yesterday, no figures were given for the amounts that the unemployed, the sick and disabled, pensioners and families may expect to receive under any new arrangements? Why were no figures given for the number of households which can expect to lose as a consequence of the loss of housing benefit?

In accordance with custom, we have still to decide the figures for this year's uprating— [Interruption]. It is according to custom. It is done either on a historical basis or on a forecast. We rejected the forecast and chose the historical basis. That means that we must wait for the May retail price index figures, which are not published until June—[Interruption.] That method has been approved by the House. It is more certain than forecasting. As we have yet to decide this year's figures, we are hardly likely to decide figures for two years hence.

We have been told that this is a major shake-up of the social security system. Is the Prime Minister really trying to tell us that after thousands of hours of civil servants’ time, endless wrangling in Government committees and three Cabinet meetings, she has no facts, no figures and no estimates? We are not asking for precise figures; we want dependable estimates of what the effect will be on families who need the benefit incomes of which they are about to be deprived.

The right hon. Gentleman clearly drafted that supplementary question before he heard my reply to his original question. He might recall that even his Government determined the uprating annually on a forecast basis. We do it on a historical basis. His Government followed that procedure. We uprate each year and we like to know precisely what the figures are before we decide the uprating.

With the celebrated toings and froings, the postponed Cabinet meetings and the wrangles that took place, absolutely nobody can reasonably be expected to accept what the Prime Minister has said. Is it not a fact that she is trying to hide what the outcome of the proposals will be, and that even she is ashamed of her proposals? Can she not give figures? Is she afraid? Is she innumerate, or simply mendacious?

No, Mr. Speaker, factual. There has been an annual uprating of social security benefits for many years. That is the fact. It is only the right hon. Gentleman who is capable of ignoring the facts. He cannot be expected to be believed if he does.

Does the Prime Minister think that we ought to draw any conclusions from the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is no longer prepared to leave social security matters to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)?

I am not sure whether that is an improvement or otherwise.

Will the Prime Minister confirm one aspect of the proposals announced yesterday? Is it the case that elderly people on low incomes, living in purpose-built housing, will in future find themselves losing part of their rate rebate and also, unless they are on supplementary benefit, housing benefit as well? If that is the case, does the Prime Minister not recognise that that means that many elderly people will not be able to afford to go on living in accommodation which successive Governments have encouraged to be specially built for them?

In the Green Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is intended that everyone shall be expected to pay some contribution towards rates, save possibly those on supplementary benefit. I think it is right that everyone should be expected to make a contribution towards rates so that we do not have a position in which those who make no contribution at all can demand enormous increases in local authority expenditure at the expense of other people.

Can my right hon. Friend clear up one point? Why is it suggested that everybody should have to make a contribution to rates when we understand that rates are to be abolished?

My right hon. Friend will have heard that point referred to in my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday, if in fact he heard it. In the meantime, there are rates. We cannot say what will happen if we bring forward legislation to change rates to other taxes.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

Returning to the dearth of information in terms of detailed figures in the social security review, may I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that in the Rowe report on housing benefit, paragraph 319 refers to the detailed analyses and computer studies that were available. Why have the Government not made them available to the House? I warn her that if she does not do that, and does not put some arithmetical flesh on the bones of the new structure, she will stand accused of wilfully attempting to stymie comment or, worse, she will be accused of political cowardice.

No, Mr. Speaker. This is a Green Paper. If the hon. Member looks in some of the separate volumes he will find many figures already there on a number of things. There are far too many to have been absorbed in the short time that the paper has been out. We are not yet prepared to put figures to particular benefits for very good reasons because we believe in sound finance — [Interruption]. Yes, Mr Speaker. It was the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman's party supported who did not believe in sound finance. It was the Labour Government who took us to the International Monetary Fund. We believe in sound finance and we shall wait until we are nearer the time to determine the uprating. It is the Labour party that believes in spend, spend, spend, with no thought of where the burden will be put on the working population.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present social security system to which the Opposition seem irretrievably wedded is so complex that many people in need do not take up the benefits to which they are entitled? Does she therefore believe that the bold reforms proposed yesterday by our right hon. Friend will enable many people in real need to take up benefits to which they are entitled—something effectively denied them by the Opposition?

Yes, Mr Speaker. I hope that it will also enable most of those entitled to benefit to understand how the benefits are calculated, which is virtually impossible at the moment.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the real figures which have been discussed in Cabinet and which were suppressed in the Green Paper will be published in the White Paper?

We have yet to determine what the upratings and figures will be. I said earlier that we had not yet decided on the upratings, which are due to take place in November. It is, therefore, not the time to decide what will happen in a few years’ time.

Given the prediction that there will be many more pensioners in the first quarter of the next century and the fact that the Opposition would change nothing, will my right hon. Friend confirm the estimate of one leading journal that our children could be paying a basic income tax rate of up to 45 per cent. to fund pensions?

Bearing in mind the promises that the Opposition regularly make for increases on everything, this country would soon be bankrupt with the policies that they propose.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

At a time of mass unemployment and growing poverty, how can the Prime Minister justify what will clearly be seen as a blatant and vicious attack upon the poorest sections of our community? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister fails absolutely to understand the reality of poverty and that her intention is to make the poor pay for the crisis which she and her Government have brought about?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the statement made yesterday he would have heard that one of the objects of restructuring the welfare state is to see that those in need, especially needy families who are in work as well as those out of work, profit more from the social welfare system than they do at present.

Some years ago the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), in a different incarnation, said that the permissive society was a civilised society. In the light of the recent football hooliganism, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on whether that might be the approach of the Social Democratic party to such behaviour?

In any society, we all have to live by rules. We all have to uphold those rules and the law. Beyond that, we live within our own self-discipline or become prey to every whim, appetite and instinct. Most of us prefer to live by the rules of society.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

Does the Prime Minister stand by the suggestions made by some of her Ministers that any pay settlement for the nurses which is above 3 per cent. must be paid for by savings inside the National Health Service? Does that not mean that a pay settlement for nurses which is only at the rate of inflation will result in cuts in nurses’ jobs? Is that not an appallingly unfair way to treat a dedicated profession?

I hope that the decision on the pay review bodies will be announced shortly. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that if everything demanded is in the upward direction the burden on other taxpayers will be enormous. Therefore, we have to live in total within the means that have been set out in the White Paper.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the social security changes that were announced yesterday are simpler, fairer and saner than ever before? Nevertheless, when my right hon. Friend, as Prime Minister, reviews the position in the year 2010, will she ensure that I receive the pension that I deserve?

I believe that our proposals can be properly financed and delivered. That would not be so unless we had embarked upon this exercise to restructure the social services.

Does the Prime Minister understand that the resentment felt by many people in Bradford when the Bradford fire disaster was linked with the riot in Birmingham has been greatly intensified by the linking of the Bradford and Birmingham incidents with the Brussels incident? Will the right hon. Lady instruct Mr. Justice Popplewell to complete his inquiry into the Bradford disaster quickly? When will she announce what money the Government will give for the rebuilding of the Valley Parade ground so that it can become a community sports facility serving all the people of Bradford?

The terms of reference of Mr. Justice Popplewell's inquiry have been set, and I believe that they were the right ones. Spectators who go to grounds must be protected on safety grounds and must be protected from hooliganism. Both aspects are being considered by Mr. Justice Popplewell, and I believe that that is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said yesterday about money. A good deal of money is going through the Football Trust and the Football Grounds Improvement Trust for these matters. Last year an extra £3·3 million was paid out of the Football Grounds Improvement Trust because there were no further applications for improvements. We are considering the finances through a working party, and all the groups concerned are represented on it. We shall need to know the results of that working party's inquiry, and what the fire investigators and surveyors say before we decide on giving any extra money for the grounds.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry today to release to the press on or about midday a written answer to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) giving notice that the Government's merchant banking friends are being given another chance to dip their spoon into the gravy by working on proposals to privatise Rolls-Royce? That move will put the jobs of thousands of people in my constituency at risk. Has a breach of privilege—[Interruption.]

Order. I must listen carefully to this point of order.

Has a breach of privilege occurred in the timing of the answer? Its manner shows the Government's customary contempt for parliamentary democracy in not allowing hon. Members to question the proposal in the House.

Did the hon. Lady say that the answer to the question was released before 3.30 pm?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The answer should have been released at 3.30 pm and not before. That is the rule.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is a most helpful ruling. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is that the answer was released to the press before 3.30 pm. As far as we know, it will not be released to the House. What course of action is available to my hon. Friend? What breach of privilege has been committed?

I shall look into the matter. If the answer was released to the press, it would have been embargoed until 3.30 pm and should certainly not have been published before that time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I represent constituents who are employed by Rolls-Royce at Barnoldswick. I was telephoned earlier this afternoon by theLancashire Evening Telegraph and asked for my comments on this release by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There was no suggestion when I was telephoned by the journalist that there was any embargo on the information.

I shall look into the matter.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the single transferable vote system of proportional representation for all local government elections in the United Kingdom.

Arguments for proportional representation have been heard many times in the House, and will no doubt be heard many times again. But, day by day and week by week, the need for the reform of the absurd, undemocratic and unrepresentative system which has blighted our nation for generations grows ever more clear.

Many people outside the House must wonder how a Government can be elected when their vote decreased by 700,000 in the general election, yet their majority increased to 140 seats, when only about one in three of electors voted for that party. But that was two years ago, and I am sure that all Conservative Members will have noticed the recent opinion polls by Gallup and Marplan. The handicaps with which they are now faced have been suffered by third parties under the first-past-the-post system for many years, and are well known by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the alliance. If any Conservative Member would like me to explain them, I should be more than happy to do so, but if they prefer an academic opinion they should read the pamphlet written by Dr. Gordon Reece, which is available from the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). It explains with admirable clarity that the Conservative party would be reduced to a rump of 66 seats on its present standing of 29 per cent. in the polls under the first-past-the-post system.

Nevertheless, many Conservative and Labour Members may remain doubtful about the introduction of proportional representation in elections to the House. I do not share their doubts, but I invite them to consider whether they extend to elections for local authorities, which is the subject of my Bill today. The electorate in the area of a local council, be it county, region, district or borough, is not being asked to elect a Government; it is being invited to choose men and women to deal with the problems of its community, and it deserves an electoral system which gives people the opportunity to have their views reflected in the council chamber.

That is not the present system, and examples of distortion in local government are not hard to find. In 1984, in Liverpool, 90,000 voters supported the Labour party and 100,000 people voted against it, yet a Militant administration was elected there with a majority of about 15 seats on the city council. In the same year in Edinburgh, 66,000 people voted for the Labour party and more than 100,000 voted against it, yet the Labour party has a majority on the council of six. The policies of those councils are well known, and Conservative Members have frequently deplored them, yet every Conservative Member who votes against my Bill today is saying, "I want those Left-wing policies to be implemented in those cities against the wishes of the majority of their inhabitants."

I would not want it to be thought that the Bill is aimed only at Labour-controlled councils. In 1982, in the London borough of Sutton, the Conservative party won just more than 50 per cent. of the vote. 1 fully accept that that would entitle the Conservatives to control the council, but I do not accept that it entitles them to 82 per cent. of the seats. Only last month in Surrey county council the Conservatives won more than two thirds of the seats on fewer than half of the votes. Every Labour Member who votes against the Bill today is saying: "I want Conservative policies implemented in Surrey against the wishes of the majority of the people."

The Bill is not aimed at any party. It does not seek to stop parties from winning absolute control of local councils, but it will stop them from achieving such power if the electorate does not agree with them. The results of our apology for an electoral system are often ludicrous. In 1982, in the London borough of Brent, the Conservatives won 6 per cent. more votes than did Labour, but finished with fewer seats. In the same year in Islington the Labour party took 51 of the 52 seats on just more than 50 per cent. of the vote. The Conservative party won 24 per cent. of the vote—1 per cent. more than the alliance—yet it was rewarded with no seats compared with our one. In Tunbridge Wells in the same year, again on just more than half the vote, the Conservative party took all 16 seats.

How can anyone pretend that such outcomes are justified? How can it be right not to have any minority interest representation, or only a derisory representation? How can it be right for total, almost unchallenged, power over the affairs of any local community to be vested in the hands of any one party?

That the powers are often abused is all too evident. Rigged agendas, denial of the right of democratic debate and the appointment of council officers on the basis of their political views happens in authorities such as Liverpool where the majority party is grossly over-represented. In Tammany town halls, officials know that their future is dependent on their relations with the members of a single political party. In such circumstances, the majority party may believe that it can get away with anything.

The report of the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in political life stated:

"The local authorities most vulnerable to corruption have tended to be those in which one political party has unchallenged dominance. Not only are such authorities at particular risk because of absence of an effective opposition which can scrutinise their decisions, but investigations and the making of complaints in such areas may also be inhibited by the feeling that there is no way round the party machine".

The Bill seeks to end that. It would introduce the single transferable vote system of elections to local government elections everywhere. Under the system voters elect a number of councillors for each ward. They number the candidates in order of preference on their ballot papers, and thus can transfer their lower preferences between parties, within parties, and even to independents. They can vote for whom they like and will be sure that, whatever the choice, their vote will not be wasted—unlike under the present system—since if their first choice candidate is not elected their vote will transfer to their second choice and so on.

Evidence from other countries which already use that system show that it results in the election of more women and more representatives of ethnic minorities. It results in a higher turnout, which is of special importance for local government.

Evidence from opinion polls in the United Kingdom shows that this system, or any other PR system, is supported by a large majority of the population. It is also supported in the House of Lords. Earlier this year Lord Blake, the distinguished Conservative historian, pressed for such a measure and a Bill passed through all its stages without Division.

My Bill should commend itself to the House. It commands support from all parties and there may even be some support for it in the Government. I draw attention to the comment by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) who, when referring to parental choice, in a debate on appeals procedure under the Education Act 1980 said:

"There is a similar disappointment for the people who voted Conservative in Stockport, North and those who voted Labour in my constituency. They might ask what the point is in voting. Whatever people may think of the person who represents them, it is a funny system. People vote and then find that they are not represented."—[Official Report, 20 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 802.]

I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill, which allows proportional representation to be tested at a level at which it is most clearly needed. It will sometimes lead to parties having no overall majority on a council; but so does our present system, as I am sure everyone who has studied the results of the county council elections is well aware. Most importantly, the Bill will bring back to local government democracy, representativeness, and accountability.

rose—

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the motion?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall not take long to oppose it, but some of us are more than a little tired of hearing Liberal spokesmen talking about proportional representation and transferable votes. I think that the Liberals want proportional representation in local government because there is such a row between the Liberals and the Social Democrats that they want the opportunity to stand against one another. That is the plan. If we are not careful, we shall finish with something like the system in Northern Ireland. Is not that a wonderful hotch-potch?—[Interruption.] I did not do that.

Order. We should not be considering what the hon. Gentleman did not do.

I am opposing the Bill because I believe that a majority in the House wants to ensure that we do not allow it to go forward.

There have just been elections in Northern Ireland on a transferable vote system. We can see the result. According to the news today, all hell has been let loose in various councils. They have had to bring in the police— [Interruption.] — and countless other incidents have occurred—[Interruption.]—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is generally accepted in the House that hon. Members listen to speeches — [Interruption.]As one who listens to speeches, I object most strongly to the so-called alliance rabble barracking my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) —[Interruption.]

Order. I entirely —[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has raised a point of order with me, not with the alliance. I agree with the hon Gentleman.

I am pleased that you agree, Mr. Speaker. I shall not complain about the hooligan-type conduct of the Liberals and Social Democrats because they do it continually. I do not need an extra microphone, as the leader of the Liberal party does. He had an extra mike put in at a cost of £10,000, and there is an extra one on the Tory Benches—

Order. Let us get back to the subject.

I was just trying to explain that it does not worry me what the alliance does, because at the end of the day there will be fewer of them after the general election that there are now irrespective of whether they have the local government transferable vote.

> The Liberal party and the Social Democratic party can agree on hardly anything. I should like to know what the local government candidates would do on matters affecting policy. Would they be able to put out joint manifestos — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) is rabbiting on again. Would they put out joint manifestos on the abolition of the welfare state? The leader of the Social Democratic party is quite anxious to see the changes that have been put forward by the Government. However, the Liberals are not very happy about it, or at least they have slight reservations—not in principle, simply on the arithmetic. Therefore, it would be interesting to see those manifestos.

I suspect that we would have not joint selection for candidates in local government, but almighty rows based not on democracy but on some sort of quasi-regional vote, in which delegates would come from the various areas —[Interruption.] No, that is absolutely wrong.

Those are some of the problems that would occur. I do not believe that the Bill will get very far because the Government will kill it as they have killed many others on a Friday — [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Leeds, West wish to intervene?

I cannot.

I am prepared to break with precedent.

Standing Orders do not allow it.

I appreciate that.

The cause of proportional representation, rather than being on the upward trend, is now, according to the Liberals and Social Democrats in their pamphlets, going downhill just a little bit. I do not want to over-egg the pudding, but I read a pamphlet the other day by the alliance which said that whereas it had been generally in favour of proportional representation for everybody in the British Isles, it now had some reservations about the Orkney and Shetland constituency, and Caithness and Sutherland — [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Isle of Wight."] Indeed. The reason is, rather strangely, that members of the alliance realise that they could not guarantee that their candidates in those three parliamentary constituencies would win on the basis of a transferable vote. They are happy with the present system for Orkney and Shetland, Caithness and Sutherland and Isle of Wight so that they can keep their Members of Parliament. We are witnessing the alliance parties indulging in hypocrisy. We oppose the motion so that we can establish clearly in the House that there is a massive majority against this barmy idea—another one—from the Liberals this afternoon.

I beg to move, That this House, noting with alarm the Government's complacency in the face of deteriorating economic and social conditions in rural communities in Wales, urges the Government to change to policies which by improving transport and other services and employment opportunities will reverse the decline of those communities.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Even in a week when a great deal of our attention has been focused on the malaise that affects urban communities, it is right that we should consider this afternoon the problems of rural communities in Britain,, in particular those in Wales. It is necessary to state, so that Conservative Members do not get the wrong idea, what the motion does not say. It does not say that rural depopulation and decline started with the election of a Conservative Government in 1979. Since members of the Welsh Grand Committee know that the Secretary of State's political memory goes back only to 1976, let me assure him that we do not say that it started then, either. It predates 1976.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to refrain from commenting until he has heard a little more.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned what the motion does not say, may I have your ruling on whether its true meaning ought to have been put before the House? May I also ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why the words "Brecon and Radnorshire" are not included in the motion?