asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to review the provisions under which former service personnel could pursue a claim following injury in United Kingdom nuclear tests.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has plans to seek to compensate ex-service men and women for ill-health arising from nuclear tests.

Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which bars such claims, is currently under review. However, it is open to former service personnel who believe that they have suffered injury which is attributable to service to apply to the Department of Health and Social Security for a war disablement pension. Nevertheless, it remains the Government's view that no one was harmed as a result of exposure to ionising radiation from the United Kingdom test programme. The matter will be reviewed when the results of the National Radiological Protection Board survey are available later this year.

Is it not clear, particularly as a result of the findings and recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission, that significant numbers of British ex-service men who served in the Pacific were unnecessarily exposed to nuclear radiation? Is there not a clear moral responsibility on the Government to waive the provisions of section 10 to allow compensation to be paid to those people whose health is suffering?

There were 202 different conclusions in the report, and they require careful study. We have had some meetings at official level with the Australian Government. Later this month the Foreign Secretary and I will meet Senator Evans, the Australian Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, and we shall discuss the findings of the commission.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a stong feeling among ex-service men that the NRPB submission is just another delaying tactic? If the Government are serious about the matter, as they should be, they should initiate their own commission of inquiry, as the Australians have done.

The Government are serious about the matter. I hope that the NRPB survey findings will be available in the autumn. I take the matters that have been raised extremely seriously, but in order to assess the possibility of illness and death resulting from the tests we must have a proper survey of those who were involved in them.

My hon. Friend may take note of whether our ex-service men have nuclear disease, but is he aware that the council in Middlesbrough will not employ people who were long-serving personnel in our armed forces?

I have listened to what my hon. Friend has said, and that seems most extraordinary.

In view of what the Minister has said about a proper survey, why does he not extend the NRPB survey to examine the genetic effects on the children of service men who were involved in the tests?

The NRPB survey could be extended in many ways, but, as it is presently defined, it will enable us to establish whether people were adversely affected by the tests. We can then decide on the appropriate action.

Will the survey, when sending a questionnaire to the families of the 20,000 personnel, both military and civilian, take into account the fact that many of them are dead? I have been looking into the matter, and I am not satisfied. Is the Minister satisfied with the survey as it has been carried out?

A questionnaire is not being sent to the 20,000 people. Obviously information is available about the health records of those people, and that is what the survey will be based on. The right hon. Gentleman has tabled questions about that before, and I have taken them seriously. I am satisfied that the survey will give us the information that is necessary to reach a proper and considered conclusion. We do care about the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what military spin-off he expects from the strategic defence initiative research; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the statement that my predecessor made to the House on 9 December.

Does the new Secretary of State for Defence, whom I am sure we all welcome to the Dispatch Box, agree with the view of the United States Secretary of Defence that deterrence is a mutual suicide pact? Does he agree with him also that the world needs to be released from the shadow of nuclear destruction? If so, does he believe that the pursuit of research into verifiable measures of nuclear disarmament is preferable, cheaper, and likely to be more effective than the pursuit of the technological fixed dream of SDI?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. The point is that the research will continue in any case, and the fact that we in Britain have an opportunity to take part in it can only be to our advantage. It remains the main part of our policy to pursue the reduction of armaments in every way we can.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Defence and wish him a long and happy tenure of office in that job. Does he agree that the spin-offs from projects such as this are incalculable, and that the spin-offs are always much more considerable than the accepted wisdom?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his welcome, which I greatly appreciate. It is important for us all to realise that the spin-off effects are not merely in the area to which they are addressed—that is to say, research into systems in space—but that they have important connotations for conventional defence and civilian use.

When the research eventually comes to an end, will we be given the complete results? Will we be treated by President Reagan with the same generosity as he has promised to treat the Soviet Union?

It will be a long time before the reasearch upon which we are embarking in conjunction with the United States comes to any sort of an end. At that time, it will be for all the Governments concerned to consider what should be published.

Is there any chance, however remote, that SDI research will lead to helicopters being obsolescent?

I do not think that the research is addressing itself to that question.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his office of Secretary of State for Defence. He will know, as the House knows, that he is the fourth incumbent of that office in a period of about five and a half years, and, with such an attrition rate, I hope that he has cleared all his answers with the Cabinet Office.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words, which I greatly appreciate. He said that I am the fourth incumbent of this office, but in my last office I was the only incumbent for six and a half years, so perhaps there is a balance there.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation his Department has made of the feasibility of the strategic defence initiative as a defence system.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment Her Majesty's Government make of the attainability of the objectives originally set by President Reagan for the strategic defence initiative.

The United States SDI is a long-term research programme intended to investigate the technical feasibility of defences against ballistic missiles. It would be premature at this stage to form judgments about the outcome of the research.

I associate the Liberal Bench with the welcome to the Secretary of State and express the wish that he is as helpful inside the Cabinet as his predecessor now is outside the Cabinet. Given that the bedrock of the deterrence theory, according to its adherents, is the ability of both sides to inflict devastating damage, and that the aim of SDI is to make one side invulnerable to that devastating damage, does not SDI undermine the theory of deterrence?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for their good wishes, which I greatly appreciate.

Did not the President of the United States make it quite clear that his basis for accepting SDI was that it could render nuclear weapons obsolete by creating an impenetrable shield against all offensive weapons? If that cannot be attained—and nobody in the United States now seems to believe that it can—does not SDI become an expensive, unnecessary and provocative addition to our deterrent?

That is the whole purpose of embarking upon research in the first place. Until that research has been brought to fruition, which will take a long time, we shall not know whether it is capable of achieving its main objective, which is to devise a system that will make nuclear weapons obsolescent. I should have thought that all of us would approve of that objective.

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his appointment. Does he agree that the more awesome the weapons of mass destruction that are ranged against us by the Soviet Union, the more important it is for scientists on this side of the Atlantic, as in the United States, to carry out research into potential defences against them?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that it is important from those points of view. When one adds to that the fact that this research will take place somewhere anyway, surely all of us who have any interest in this country's high technology industry should be glad that we are to have some part in it.

Is it not a fact that for many years the Soviet Union has had a massive SDI programme of its own, killer satellites being merely one example? Is it not misleading for Opposition politicians and others to give the impression that the West and NATO are breaking new ground by taking the SDI initiative? Surely we should be doing this in order to keep up with what the Soviet Union has been doing for years.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Soviet Union has indeed been carrying out investigations in this area for a very long time. I am quite baffled by the theory that seems to be put forward by the Opposition that, despite that, we ought to have nothing to do with it. That seems to me to be a suicidal course.

Is the Secretary of State aware of United States studies which suggest that laser technology, which can be used as an anti-ballistic missile system, can also be used as an offensive system to create fires within Soviet cities? Does the Secretary of State accept that if that is the case, those weapons, far from enhancing deep deterrence, are very dangerous, because they will escalate the production of offensive armaments?

I have seen newspaper reports to that effect, but at this stage there is no hard evidence that research has established any such fact. If it did, it would be a new matter that would have to be considered afresh.

Has the new Secretary of State for Defence yet had a chance to read the letter—not marked confidential—that was sent to the Prime Minister in October 1985 by 60 leading advanced information technology scientists at Imperial college, saying that any conceivable star wars technology was not feasible? If the Secretary of State has read that letter, what is his response to it?

I have heard about that letter, but I have not yet had a chance to read it. I shall certainly study it with care.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current position on the European fighter programme.

As I explained to my hon. Friend on 22 October last, excellent progress has been made since agreement was reached in the summer between the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain to proceed with the further definition and refinement of the European fighter aircraft programme. Work on the project definition phase is now well under way and a report is expected from industry next summer.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In the interests of my constituents and many others who are working on this programme, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that other events in the aerospace industry will not make any impact upon this programme, which is so important to jobs and to European co-operation in industry and defence?

I can confirm that. The Government remain firmly committed to carrying on with the EFA project definition. We believe that collaboration in this area is extremely important.

Does not this programme offer the greatest across-the-board possibilities and opportunities for British industry that we have seen for generations? Does not the logic of a hands-off approach to our defence contractors mean that British Aerospace should support an American licence to build an American fighter?

The Government do not adopt a hands-off approach to defence procurement. The Government wish to be assured that their requirements can be met from the private sector. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government were closely involved in this matter.

With regard to the other European venture that has collapsed, or appears to be collapsing, with the help of the Government, is it not in the subsectors—avionics and other matters—that British industry will be hurt? Is not one of the consequences of the Government's present attitude that British firms working on those systems will be badly bitten, as Sikorsky supplies them? Why should the European national armaments directors believe the Government any more? After all, we have only a memorandum of understanding; we do not even have a firm contract.

I am strongly tempted to answer the hon. Gentleman, but that matter does not arise out of the question on the Order Paper.

At what stage does my hon. Friend expect that contracts for work on the European fighter will be awarded to suppliers in different countries?

The evaluation of the project definition phase will not be available until next summer. Contracts will follow thereafter. Of course, some work is being done at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's discussions with members of the department of artificial intelligence and other scientists at the University of Edinburgh on research under the strategic defence initiative.

Ministry of Defence officials met Dr. Thompson from the department of artificial intelligence, Edinburgh university, on 20 December to discuss various aspects of the strategic defence initiative.

The Secretary of State will know from his previous incarnation that the department of artificial intelligence in Edinburgh is one of the most distinguished in the world. How, then, does he answer the point put by Dr. Henry Thompson and his colleagues who say, as do scientists at Imperial college, that the scheme can never come to fruition? In the absence of a spare planet, which the Ministry of Defence presumably does not have, how is the testing to be done? Unless there is a spare planet, there is no way that the scheme can be tested.

The discussions with Dr. Thompson have been fulfilled, as my predecessor undertook that they would be. Dr. Thompson and his colleagues are entitled to their view, but that does not alter the fact that the research will go on in any case, and if this country is involved there will be considerable spin-off effects, both civilian and military. We should be foolish to turn our backs on it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I gather that the same scientists have suggested that the computer system to run the SDI would have to be hundreds of times more powerful than the current NORAD early warning system? Is he aware that that system crashes every 30 seconds on average and has never worked for longer than half an hour? Why is the Secretary of State diverting a precious part of our human resources in computer research to this ridiculous red herring?

The point of the research is to find out whether the scheme is feasible and, if so, how. We should bear in mind that views are strongly held by individuals all over the place and they do not necessarily affect the views of a university or a department as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the placing of orders for conventional and nuclear submarines in British shipyards.

Orders were placed on 3 January 1986 for three Upholder class submarines and one Trafalgar class SSN. A tender has been received for the first of the Trident boats and is being evaluated. The precise order date has yet to be determined.

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is not answering this question. When he was Secretary of State for Scotland he gave a clear indication during Scottish Question Time, just before the recess, that a Scottish yard would receive a submarine order. We in Scotland are extremely disappointed that the Ministry has left itself open to a monopolistic supplier, which is conducive to the privatisation of that yard. Will the Minister give us an undertaking about what value we can put on the Trafalgar House bid for some of the Trident steel work?

The hon. Gentleman is very wrong in his first suggestion, and totally wrong in his second suggestion. The placing of the order had nothing to do with the privatisation programme.

I acknowledge that the acceptance of the lowest tender for any contract is a good principle, but, in the case of Cammell Laird, will my hon. Friend carefully scrutinise the rather over-optimistic prices that have been offered for the award of the submarine contract? Will he carefully study that contract over the next few years?

I understand my hon. Friend's deep anxiety over the Scott Lithgow yard, but all tenders are and will be carefully scrutinised. Cammell Laird won the competition on a true and open basis.

Is the Minister aware that on 26 November 1985 his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement told the House that it was the Government's intention that there should be a number of submarine yards and that Vickers had a monopoly not of conventional but of nuclear submarines? Does he agree, in the light of the placing of the order with Vickers, and hence the conferment of monopoly powers on that company, that that decision sharply contradicts what the Minister of State said on 26 November?

With respect, while I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, that does not contradict what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said. I repeat that; there has been competition for the SSK orders. We believe that there will also be satisfactory competition in the future, so there is no question of a monopoly.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that in the placing of such orders, and, indeed, orders for all military equipment, overriding importance will be attached to quality and price and that there will be no artificial constraints placed on orders, geographically or in any other way?

I can assure my hon. Friend that competition is very much the order of the day. Nevertheless, there are times when we have to take into account wider and relevant factors.

The Minister must appreciate the widespread disappointment felt in Scotland, which the Secretary of State echoed, when the announcement was made. Deepening suspicion and cynicism are felt because everyone knows that this is merely a matter of fattening up Vickers before privatisation. There is the added cynicism that the price that the people at Cammell Laird were able to quote was possible because they were able to obtain information from Vickers at Barrow about the target figure that they would have to meet. There is little chance of competitive tendering if there is only one supplier, because the other one will be on its last legs if orders are not provided.

Most of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions are, with the greatest respect, unworthy of him. There is no question of placing the orders with Cammell Laird and Vickers because of the privatisation programme.

In view of the insignificant share of defence orders that Scotland received in the last announcement, has the Minister's right hon. Friend issued instructions that steps should be taken within the Ministry of Defence to find more work for Scotland because of our substantial unemployment problem?

My right hon. Friend plainly understands the needs of Scotland, because of his former position, but he will be completely open and fair-minded in the placing of future orders.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the Nimrod programmes will be completed.

The Nimrod maritime reconnaissance mark 2 programme will be completed this year. The completion date for the Nimrod airborne early warning mark 3 programme will depend on the outcome of the current negotiations with GEC Avionics Ltd. and on consequent decisions as to the best way to take the project forward.

In view of its disgraceful history and the length of time that this programme has taken to complete, what sanctions does my hon. Friend have in mind if the contractors fail to meet the due date this time?

It would not be right for me to disclose what we might do, because we are negotiating with GEC on this matter. We wish to obtain a fixed price contract for the completion of the project to an acceptable operating standard and also within a short time.

Does the Minister honestly believe in his original answer that the programme will be finished this year?

I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard my answer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that instead of concentrating on spoiling some other project at Westlands, GEC would be better advised to concentrate on giving the shareholders and the country better value for the hundreds of millions of pounds that the Nimrod contract has so far cost, without the aeroplane flying successfully? Has not the time come for the company to concentrate on giving taxpayers value for what they have paid for?

As is well known, this project is nearly five years late. The original cost at 1986 prices was some £856 million. Already, £874 million has been spent on this project and it does not work to a satisfactory standard. We take this matter seriously, but it is one that we shall have to sort out in negotiation with the company. It is in no doubt about the seriousness with which the Secretary of State and myself regard this project.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances a Ministry of Defence decontamination squad attended the scene of the accident involving a military convoy at Helensburgh on 20 June.

In relation to the circumstances of the accident to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, I cannot add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 15 July last year.

Accepting, as presumably the Minister does, that this transport was carrying nuclear weapons, that there was an accident and that the decontamination squad was available, what reassurance, if any, is the Minister prepared to give to the public that if there is an accident involving nuclear weapons en route, satisfactory provision will be made to deal with a potentially dangerous situation?

As the hon. and learned Member and the House know, it is the policy of this Government, like that of all our predecessors, neither to confirm nor to deny the presence of nuclear weapons. On the generality, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that under successive Governments there have been detailed arrangements on a contingency basis for responding to any nuclear accident that might occur.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future orders for type 23 ships.

Tenders have been received for the next three type 23 frigates and these are being evaluated, but the precise size and timing of any orders have yet to be determined.

In view of the excellent record of the defence industries on the Tyne, will my hon. Friend give urgent attention to providing orders for Swan Hunter and other yards on the Tyne? Will he also take the opportunity to look closely at the Vickers Valkyr APC, which is manufactured by Vickers on the Tyne, and which could provide excellent service for the Army?

I shall certainly look into the latter point. On my hon. Friend's first point, I have to say that the Ministry of Defence is not in the business of providing orders for any particular yard. I emphasise that these days we place orders on the basis of competition, and in our warship yards, fortunately, we have substantial competition.

Are any aspects of the original decision to reject the S90 short, fat ship in favour of the type 23 officially secret—apart from the weapons system and information on the weapons system?

The hon. Member asks about the S90. All the options were exhaustively examined in 1983, and I have nothing to add to the statement that I made to the House on 1 November 1983. The way for the Ministry of Defence to make sure that it gets value for money is to proceed with the design that it has, and we shall accordingly be starting to order follow-on type 23 ships this year. I cannot comment on Admiral Hill-Norton's report until it is received and I have had an opportunity to study it. My Department has offered assistance to the committee.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, following receipt of the Hill-Norton report and his study of it, he will carry out a review of the procedures under which decisions on ship design are made?

I take my hon. Friend's request.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government are still committed to a 50-warship navy? The present rate of ordering means that we will be far short of that number by the end of the decade unless something happens quickly.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there has been no change in the Government's intention to maintain a force of about 50 escort vessels.

Does not the apparent delay in placing the orders for type 23 frigates and the delays in buying essential new equipment for other services, which is leading to a drop in morale in the services, indicate that there is a need for an overall defence review? Will his right hon. Friend, who is a new broom in the Ministry of Defence, set about instituting such a review?

With great respect, I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that. Ten days or a fortnight ago we placed about £1 billion worth of naval orders.

Although I accept what my hon. Friend has said about competition for the type 23, may I ask whether he agrees that the efficient and skilled work force at Scott Lithgow in Gourock on the lower Clyde must be considered in the context of maintaining it if we are to develop Ministry of Defence requirements in the years to come?

I understand that, but we have substantial existing capacity in our warship yards. That is the reality under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government's policy on the deployment of nuclear weapons is still based on the concept of mutually assured destruction.

Her Majesty's Government's policy on the deployment of nuclear weapons is based on the strategy of deterrence, which has preserved peace with freedom in western Europe for more than 40 years.

Is the Minister aware that as recently as October Mr. Caspar Weinberger stated that mutually assured destruction had not kept the peace for 40 years and would not do so in the future? If the United States no longer believes in that policy, is it not surprising that this Government do?

I assure the hon. Lady that the United States believes as firmly in the policy of deterrence as do this Government. I have some difficulty in noting that the hon. Lady cannot accept the policy of deterrence, given the fact that Labour Governments engaged in an expensive secret programme to enhance the United Kingdom's use of the nuclear deterrent.

Will my right hon. Friend totally ignore the views of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), which are utterly rejected by the vast majority of the British people and will ensure the defeat of the Labour party in the next election?

I assure my hon. Friend that I regard his comments as much more representative of the views of the British people than the comments of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the deployment of highly accurate counter-force weapons, such as Trident, is destabilising because it creates the fear on the other side that such weapons might be used in a first strike and thus increases the chance of nuclear weapons being used sooner rather than later in a crisis?

I see nothing destabilising in preserving the credibility of the deterrent. That policy was accepted by the Labour Government as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the progress of the experimental fighter aircraft programme; and if he will make a statement.

The experimental aircraft programme is a technology demonstrator programme which will give us practical experience in the integration of the wide range of new technologies required for new, sophisticated combat aircraft.

In view of my hon. Friend's welcome reply earlier to the effect that contracts for part of this programme are likely to come up next summer, will he confirm that all the resources of his Department will be made available where necessary to those British companies which have already been involved in the groundwork, to ensure that they are not negotiated out of a substantial programme?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have meetings constantly with British industry and invite industry to tell us how we can help further in this programme.

May I refer to the question that I put before? How can our European partners who will be engaged with us in developing the European fighter, which is based on our experience in EAP, depend upon the Government, following their shameful treatment on the helicopter issue?

Our partners can depend absolutely upon the Government. I have already given the commitment that we are thoroughly in favour of continuing with EFA.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what training he intends for the Regular Army Reserve in 1986.

We are planning for up to 500 Regular Reservists to participate in the major BAOR field training exercise later this year. In addition, the new scheme whereby Regular Reservists in their third year of liabililty are invited to participate in one week refresher training courses at various locations throughout the United Kindgom will be continued during 1986. We shall continue to examine ways of providing further cost-effective training opportunities for those with a Regular Reserve commitment.

What deductions has my right hon. Friend made from the experiences of using the Regular Army Reserve on exercises Lionheart and Brave Defender in the past couple of years? Does he agree that this is an under-utilised resource that is highly cost-effective? Will he look to expand its use?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we have concluded very favourably from the training opportunities that we have provided for the Regular Reservists. We are very glad that my hon. Friend participated in both exercises, Lionheart and Brave Defender. We shall continue to try to find ways to produce cost-effective opportunities for Regular Reservists to engage in more training.

Since the Regular Reservists report to Territorial Army sponsoring battalions, is my right hon. Friend happy that the expansion programme for the Territorial Army is on target and is ready to receive those Reservists?

I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the expansion of the Territorial Army to our target of 86,000 by 1990 is at the moment well on track and that the Territorial Army's strength currently stands at 74,000, compared with only 59,000 when we came to office.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on disposal of Ministry of Defence land.

It is the policy of the Ministry of Defence to dispose of land and buildings which are no longer required for defence purposes. Since 1979 the estate has been reduced by almost 28,000 acres.

While I congratulate my hon. Friend on that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that many of us who represent constituencies in the south-east of England will welcome a further disposal of surplus defence land, which will reduce the pressure for housing development land in open countryside in our areas?

While I understand my hon. Friend's point, the fact is that, because of our expansion of the Territorial Army and of the cadet forces, together with the development of longer-range weaponry, we are looking to add to the training land for the Army. Obviously, however, when suitable opportunities arise—[Interruption.]—we shall continue to dispose of land.

Order. These are important questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the costs, probable causes and consequences of the fire at Royal Air Force Brampton on Wednesday 23 October.

The fire at Royal Air Force Brampton destroyed the main part of the headquarters building of Royal Air Force support command. This will be replaced at an estimated cost of £1·2 million for temporary accommodation, followed by approximately £4 million more for permanent accommodation. The inquiry into the cause of the fire is not yet complete, but there is no evidence that it was other than accidental. Operational capabilities are unaffected, although some minor administrative difficulties may be experienced until the headquarters organisation can be fully reconstituted in the new accommodation.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that, after two serious fires in the past three years, costing millions of pounds, the security system ought to be more appropriate to the modern age?

We are always endeavouring to improve our security.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently involved in information visits to schools; and if he will make a statement.

Some 155 service personnel are employed either in presentation teams, which can be made available to visit educational establishments, or as school or college liaison officers. In addition, members of the careers information field force staff of all three services make visits to schools from time to time as part of their more general responsibilities.

Bearing in mind the fact that there are 30,000 schools in this country, not to mention a large number of colleges and universities, does my hon. Friend not think that that is an inadequate number to go round schools and other institutions to inform pupils what careers are available to them in the services and the role that our service personnel can play in the defence of our country?

Our service personnel do an excellent job. While one would like to have more people allocated to the task, there are manpower pressures.

In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues are up to their necks in business of one kind or another, if the Government find that they cannot allocate sufficient people to carry out a tour of all these areas, may I ask whether the Minister has approached the ex-Secretary of State for Defence, who, seemingly, will have more time on his hands in future, to do the job for them?

We are always grateful for contributions from the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, pending the report of the Public Accounts Committee, he will make a statement on the new figures for the costing of military schools of music given in his evidence to the Committee on 4 December by the permanent secretary, Sir Clive Whitmore.

The group set up to implement the decision to establish the defence school of music at Deal reported in March 1985 that the estimated construction cost had risen from £5·8 million to £10·6 million. We are now examining the requirement for instruction and buildings in order to bring the cost down to the earlier estimate.

As there is not now much difference between the cost of continuing with the present system and that of setting up a joint services' music school on the coast, will the Government examine carefully the report of the Public Accounts Committee when it is published, and reconsider the view of the previous Secretary of State for Defence, as the high standards of British Army bands, which are the envy of the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—are linked inextricably with the first-class training they receive at Kneller hall, Twickenham?

My hon. Friend has obviously struck a welcome note. He has waged a tireless campaign for Kneller hall, and all credit to him. However, there is no change in our fundamental decision to go on a tri-service basis to Deal.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will the Prime Minister say why she remained silent about the letter from British Aerospace while the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry misled the House yesterday afternoon?

I do not accept that my right hon. and learned Friend misled the House. Indeed, he gave a clear explanation. As the hon. Gentleman is aware from answers that have been given many times by me, it is my practice not to publish exchanges with third parties, nor to reveal them, if they are marked "Private and strictly confidential." I hope that if anyone writes a letter to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen which is marked "Private and strictly confidential", it will not be our practice to flaunt either its existence or contents on the Floor of the House.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that the Government gave to me in reducing secrecy in local government. Will she now review the Official Secrets Act 1911 at national level, especially section 2, in the 75th year of its existence with a view to replacing it with a freedom of information Act?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the passage of his Bill, which is due to come into effect shortly. As he knows, we had one attempt in 1979 at changing the Official Secrets Act because many people found it not to their liking, but that change did not obtain the consent of the House.

Will the Prime Minister now publish the Westland documents of 4 and 18 October? Since Sir Austin Pearce has now given his permission, will she also publish the letter that she received from British Aerospace yesterday?

My Office has been in touch with Sir Austin Pearce. It is my intention to consult him later today. I recognise the importance that the letter has assumed, and I shall consult him about publication.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

Bearing in mind the Government's responsibility for police planning in operational matters, has my right hon. Friend in her quieter moments had time to study the Metropolitan police report on the Tottenham riots? Is she as horrified as I am by the facts in it, and even more horrified at the reaction of mad Bernie Grant and the Haringey council, who accused the police of lying? Will she give the House an assurance that she and her Government will continue to support the police in their work throughout the country in protecting the innocent against the wicked?

Yes. I gladly give that assurance. The overwhelming majority of our citizens suppport the police in their difficult task and the very difficult judgments that they have sometimes to make.

May I revert to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire)? Does the Prime Minister remember several highly publicised prosecutions in the past few years of public servants for alleged breaches of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911? As, in the past few days, there have been massive breaches of section 2 by members of the Government, will they be prosecuted, or will she declare the section dead?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that prosecutions are not for me. He is also aware that we tried to amend the Official Secrets Act during 1979–80. It went through considerable debate. Many people wanted change, but we have not yet got agreement on what the changes should be.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

On the question of the Channel link, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will make a decision for one of the schemes as put forward, without changing it or the composition of any promoting group?

Negotiations about the Channel fixed link are continuing. I can only tell my hon. Friend that it is likely that we shall have to consider how far it would benefit users and be able to attract the finance necessary for the link.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

In reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that she would make public the letter to which he referred. Will she also give an assurance that she will make available to us the letters of 4 and 18 October?

I cannot necessarily agree to the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman said. I made it clear that my Office is in touch with Sir Austin Pearce. I intend to consult him later today about the possibility of the publication of those letters, because I recognise that they have become a major issue and that the House is likely to wish to see their publication in time for the debate tomorrow.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of NALGO's blacking of my constituency correspondence with Lewisham council's housing department whereby an unrepresentative minority trade union clique is abusing its extraordinary power over Lewisham council, completely without regard for the damage to the interests of my constituents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is at stake here is a matter of principle, which should be of the utmost concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend and understand that genuine concern has been expressed in all parts of the House when the matter has been raised before. It is quite wrong for correspondence to be hindered in this way, and fundamentally against democracy. We all wish my hon. Friend well in ending this offence.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

If the Prime Minister has now been given permission to publish the contents of the letter from Sir Austin Pearce and British Aerospace, why does she need to have any further conversations with him? Is she worrying about something? Is there something that she has to hide? Why does she not publish the letter, having been given permission? There is no need for further discussion when the whole House—even those crowing behind her—want to know what is in the letter.

With respect, I think that I have probably answered this question several times, but let me repeat the reply. The letter was marked "Private and strictly confidential". It is my invariable practice not to reveal publicly such correspondence without the permission of its author. It will continue to be my practice, because I think that that is the right procedure. I hope that it will be the practice of other right hon. and hon. Members. I therefore indicated—I have not yet replied to the letter, my Office has been in touch with Sir Austin—that it is my intention to consult Sir Austin later today about the possibility of publication. I know that the House will wish to have it published by tomorrow. It is my intention to be in touch about that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most encouraging aspect in the otherwise sorry state of the Westland helicopter company is the fact that she and her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regard letters that are marked as private and confidential as being private and confidential? Will she also agree with me that, if the right hon. prima donna Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—[Interruption.]—had understood the meaning of the words private and confidential, his political career would not be in the ruins which it is today?

With regard to what my hon. Friend said about the letter, I have made clear my past practice, and I have made clear what I consider will be my future practice, because it is, I believe, the correct one.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity unreservedly to condemn the excessive use of force by a member of a private security firm apparently to be funded by the Home Office, against the non-violent person, Sue Pitman, at Carmarthen last Saturday?

In general, of course, one always will condemn the use of unwarranted force. The only exception is self-defence. I do not know about the particular case and I am not able therefore to comment in detail on it. Perhaps the hon. Member will be in touch.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that nine men have spent the last 10 days marching from Gartcosh steel mill in Scotland? Why will the Prime Minister not have the decency to meet them now that they are in London?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I met the representatives of the Scottish TUC when I was in Glasgow last autumn, and also the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). In addition, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister for Trade have offered to meet the people from Gartcosh. I do not see any further purpose in meeting them again.

Will my right hon. Friend be replying to the letter that she has received from British Aerospace, and can she promise that, short of a simple acknowledgement, she will reply in public and not have it marked private and confidential?

That is one of the reasons why I am consulting before the reply goes.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

In view of the fact that the letter from Sir Austin Pearce was marked "Private and confidential", will the Prime Minister tell the House why she made the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry aware of the letter before he arrived at the House? Will she say at what time yesterday she received the letter and at what time the Secretary of State was made aware of its contents?

I saw the letter shortly before I came to the House—

Time.

Well, shortly before. I had been presiding over an official lunch, of which the hon. Gentleman may well know, and it was not until that had finished and I had said farewell to the guests that I was made aware of the letter and so came to the House very quickly.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that out of the 12 local authorities whose rates have been capped, five have not appealed against that decision? Does she agree that by not appealing against its rates being capped Basildon district council is admitting that it is extravagant in its expenditure?

I believe that is so. I also believe that many ratepayers will be very grateful for the rate-capping legislation that has passed through this House, which has curbed the level of rates that ratepayers would otherwise have had to pay.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 January

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

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to consider the possibility of making an official visit to the Kingdom of Nepal within the next 12 months?

I should very much like to do so.