asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to promote civil spin-off from defence research and development.

Civil spin-off from defence research is sought and encouraged through the British Technology Group, the patenting of inventions and direct contacts between the Department and industry. These arrangements are now complemented by the activities of Defence Technology Enterprises, a private sector company established as a joint initiative between the MOD and the private sector.

I welcome that reply. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the concern in many quarters that so much of the nation's research and development is defence orientated. Will he tell the House a little more about the enterprise project, which, I believe, involves a partnership between public and private money?

Defence Technology Enterprises is a joint initiative. The share capital is owned entirely by the private sector. It is making encouraging progress. There are executives of Defence Technology Enterprises in three major research establishments— Malvern, Farnborough and Portsdown — seeking ideas and concepts for commercial exploitation. The first licence—for software programme verification—has already been agreed.

What civil spin-off will result from the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the United States on the strategic defence initiative?

We expect that, in the fullness of time, there will be a substantial spin-off. It is impossible to be too specific at this stage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a further spin-off will be substantial defence sales abroad? Will he confirm that those sales are currently about £2·5 billion, and will he say whether they are declining or expanding?

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Defence sales are about £2·5 billion a year, or 3 to 4 per cent. of our total national exports. That excludes the Saudi aerospace contract, which is substantially more than that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the future prospects for the Westland EH101 helicopter programme; and if he will make a statement.

The EH101 has numerous advanced design features which will give it an unrivalled capability in the anti-submarine warfare role in the Royal Navy and the Italian navy. We expect it to sell well in both military and civil markets worldwide.

Is the Minister aware that his predecessor said that the EH101 helicopter programme would be an integral part of our future defence strategy? Is he further aware that Sir John Cuckney is reported to have said on two occasions that the Westland Helicopter Company would not join in partnership or merge with any company which refused to accept all that was involved in the EH101 programme? As Sikorsky has said that it does not support the EH101, will the Minister reaffirm that the British intention is to support Westland with Europe rather than with Sikorsky?

I shall consider carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. My understanding is that the EH101 is likely to go ahead, whatever the outcome of the present dispute about the future of Westland.

Is it not a fact that the sale of the EH101 to the United States, particularly the civil version, would be greatly facilitated by the support of a United States partner in Westland? As United Technologies-Sikorsky does not have an aeroplane of that class, does it not seem to be an ideal product for it to promote?

My hon. Friend made that point in a recent debate. My hon. Friend, however skilful, will not tempt me to comment on the merits of the rival suitors for Westland.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State and his predecessors have frequently said that whichever partner is chosen for Westland, it cannot affect the EH101? Is he further aware that Sikorsky, far from withdrawing its support for the EH101, has said that if the opportunity should arise it will assist in selling the EH101 to the United States? Does he agree that that may be a second experience, building on the profitable experience from the sale of Harrier, of selling excellent British defence equipment to the United States, thus creating the two-way stream that we have all sought?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). As I said in my reply, I do not believe that what he has said is correct.

Will the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces have no desire, need or money for the Black Hawk helicopter made by Sikorsky?

The position on the Black Hawk is as was stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is likely to announce further orders for the Challenger tank; and if will make a statement.

Possible further orders of Challenger are being considered as part of the annual recosting of the defence programme. It is too soon to say whether further orders will be placed.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread fear in Leeds that, because of the delay in placing further orders, jobs will be lost and the ability to continue to produce the next generation of tanks will be put in jeopardy? Is it not time that the Minister stopped delaying the decision, placed an order, and ensured job security for skilled and other people in Leeds?

The function of the royal ordnance factory must be to supply what the country needs for its defence. The basis of policy cannot simply be to maintain employment. However, I am fully aware of the importance of the Challenger order to the Leeds factory.

Just as the tank replaced the horse as the main weapon available to the cavalry, is there not a chance that the helicopter may replace the tank?

The needs of different systems and the best way to counter a tank threat from a potential enemy are constantly examined in the new integrated structure within the Ministry of Defence.

Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Defence has said that it wants to increase orders for the Challenger tank, that the Army wants it, and that the mess that the Government have made of the defence budget alone is delaying the placing of the orders?

The Government have already placed orders for six regiments of Challenger, and we intend that further orders should be placed in future. When those orders can be placed will depend on the resources available.

Why does the Minister hide behind the shield of market forces when buying necessary equipment? Does he not understand that timing is crucial for workers in Leeds? Why does he procrastinate over placing an order when it is crucial to the security of jobs in Leeds? Why does he not place the order and get on with it?

I understand the importance for Leeds, but the Government's function is not to maintain capacity merely for the sake of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conduct a defence review.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for a defence review.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a defence review.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to hold a defence review; and if he will make a statement.

I explained in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on 30 January that while, in the usual way, decisions on priorities will have to be taken in the coming months in order to match the forward programme to the available cash, I see no need for any fundamental change in our defence commitments or in the main roles undertaken by our armed forces.

If the Secretary of State will not consider a full-scale defence review, will he at least review the risks and hazards to our defence forces' readiness if our helicopters are to be provided courtesy of Sikorsky-Fiat, our military vehicles are to be made available courtesy of General Motors of Detroit and our naval frigates and submarines, and even our nuclear deterrents, are to be refitted by Foster Wheeler or some other international conglomerate? Will the right hon. Gentleman study the letter from his hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who expressed his complete opposition to the privatisation of the royal dockyards and warned of the fear that they might fall into the hands of strangers?

We always take the greatest trouble to ensure that in any changes this country's security of supply is maintained. It might be of interest to the hon. Gentleman if I remind him that since the 1930s the vast majority of military trucks used in this country have been bought from a company owned by Americans. That does not appear to have done us much harm.

What assurances can the Secretary of State give to the Royal Navy and the warship building communities that they will not be the major victims of any expenditure cuts in his Department? When will he place the three type 23 warship orders that are scheduled for this year, and when will he order the fleet auxiliaries?

I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friends the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement have said about the orders in the debates which have taken place in the past two weeks. On security, I should have thought that all the hon. Member's constituents and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) would be looking with some dread at the possibility of the Labour party ever coming back into office, because if that happens there will be huge job losses in those constituencies.

With chickens rapidly coming home to roost and Treasury forecasts of defence spending proving rapidly to be awry, would it not be as well for the Secretary of State to recognise the problem and to act or announce decisions upon it now rather than wait for further time to elapse and for his predecessor's role to be forgotten?

With regard to recognising facts, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that after six and a half years of this Government the defence budget is approximately 20 per cent., in real terms, above what it was in 1979. We should put that against statements by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who has made it clear in debates that the Labour party has no intention of increasing the present levels of conventional spending. 1 do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has a leg to stand on.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the so-called salami-slicing of defence spending, which is implicit in his answer, will continue to lower the morale of our forces? In recent months that has led to increasing numbers of resignations. Will he make a virtue out of necessity and announce the abandonment of the Trident project, which means not just high opportunity costs in terms of new conventional equipment, but a considerable escalation in our nuclear fire power at a time when there is serious negotiation over deep cuts?

I do not accept most of the hon. Gentleman's premises. To abandon our Trident programme would be to make a grave change in this country's future security. I think, but I am not sure, that his SDP allies propose not just to abandon Trident but to replace it with something else. I do not know where they would find the money for that.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that deterrence is the product of capability times will, and that cuts in defence give the impression to other nations that we lack the will to defend ourselves? Will he assure the House that future defence reviews will not contain cuts in effective spending and effective capability?

I understand my hon. Friend's point on future cuts. We have clearly laid out the provisions for defence for the next three years. I repeat that that starts from a position at least 20 per cent. higher than it was six years ago, thanks to the action of this Government.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what he has just said means that there is a firm commitment to Trident? Will he comment on the recent press speculation on a review of or a delay in the Trident programme?

There is certainly a firm commitment to Trident. The programme is on course. There is no change in the Government's position.

In his review, will my right hon. Friend seek views on cruise missile deployment, especially that of the Liberal party and the SDP, because it seems to be obscure at the moment?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. However I should make it clear that I am not conducting a review on the main components of our defence stature. I am considering ways in which the available cash can be worked into it. I believe that consulting the SDP and the Liberal party about their plans would be time-consuming and not a profitable exercise.

When my right hon. Friend reviews our defence requirements, will he bear in mind the importance of maintaining an adequate surface fleet, and will he consider the merits of the short, fat frigate design?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the surface fleet, which we shall be taking into account. The design of future frigates is another matter.

In the work carried out by the right hon. Gentleman in preparation for the review, are any of the papers of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) or of Sir John Nott denied to him?

I am not aware of any papers being denied to me. I must again make it clear that I am not conducting a defence review in the terms that the Opposition consider it to be. I am examining the present resources. Some difficult decisions will have to be taken, but there will be no need for any change in our main defence posture.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his intention not to have a fundamental review on defence? The Opposition would welcome it, because they want to destroy a British independent deterrent.

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The Opposition have done that twice in recent memory, and it has not done our defence any good.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's decision not to have a fundamental review, but like a good Scotsman he is having a cash review. When that cash review is complete, the defence budget will be seen to be out of control by £1 billion. Is it not impossible to finance Trident and all the existing conventional commitments at the same time? Something must give—Trident or conventional defence.

What is taking place is the normal annual process of a review of the long-term costings of the defence programme. Regarding matching the two factors, one cannot undertake to buy everything that everyone wants in each department. There is no call for any fundamental review of our defence posture.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is folly to pretend that there is no crisis in defence spending in Britain today? Does he agree that it is far better to have a defence review now to tackle the fundamental choices that must be made rather than wait until the crisis becomes untenable?

I know my hon. Friend's long-held strong views on this subject. I assure him that in my examination of the defence budget I shall not leave anything to chance. I shall take the greatest care.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet representatives of British defence manufacturers to discuss defence procurement.

I intend to chair the next meeting of the National Defence Industries Council on 27 February.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the future of the Nimrod project is very much in question because of its escalating cost? That project is manufactured primarily by GEC. When the chairman of GEC, the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), makes representations to the right hon. Gentleman, does he speak on behalf of his constituents in Waveney, or is he earning his £60,000 a year as chairman of GEC?

Another question has been put down on this subject, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) speaks to me as chairman of GEC, he is, of course, speaking for that company.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the 50 or 60 per cent. of the content of Trident that is supposed to be British is being prepared and whether approaches are being made to British manufacturers to fulfil that proper percentage?

We are anxious to secure the highest percentage of British participation in this project, and we shall follow my hon. Friend's suggestion.

At that meeting on 27 February, will the Secretary of State ensure that British defence manufacturers are fully alive not only to the contract and job possibilities open to them through the Nunn and Quayle amendments and the Weinburger memorandum, but to the longer-term threat posed by Gramm-Rudmen?

I have no doubt that that subject will be discussed at the meeting.

In connection with the procurement of the 155mm shell for the FH70, does my right hon. Friend agree that had that procurement been from a British company the delay of 15 months that has surrounded this contract would have necessitated possible cancellation and second sourcing from another company? Why should it be any different when we are procuring the balance of the contract from Rheinmetall in Dusseldorf, which is harming many ordnance factories, including the one in my constituency?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong feelings on the matter, which affects his constituents, but, as he knows, these purchases are part of a work-sharing agreement which is of mutual benefit to West Germany and Britain. It would be impossible to upset the agreement without causing great difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the order of replacements for HMS Fearless and Intrepid.

In anticipation of the current specialist amphibious ships coming to the end of their useful lives in about the mid-1990s, we have, during the past year, been examining all the aspects of our future amphibious capability in relation to our overall defence needs. We expect to make a decision on our future amphibious capability later this year.

As it has been reported that the joint chiefs of staff have recommended the complete replacement of these two vessels, why does the Minister not accept their advice and place these orders as early as possible, preferably on the River Tyne, where the shipyard workers are looking for work from this Government, bearing in mind the uncertainty about the type 23 and the royal fleet auxiliaries?

I have nothing to add to my reply in terms of timing. The obtaining of any future orders will be a matter of competition. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are evaluating tenders from Swan Hunter in his constituency and from Harland and Wolff.

How much of the surface fleet will the Government let go to keep Trident? How much of the manufacture and maintenance of Trident will be carried out by British manufacturers?

We have every intention of maintaining a fleet of about 50 escort vessels.

Given that the Government will have only a cash review and that it is not to be a fundamental review, how can the Minister give any assurances about the size of the fleet or, indeed, about the amphibious craft about which my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) asked him?

The hon. Gentleman and the House need only examine our naval expenditure since 1979 to know that we have a record of which to be proud. We shall not let the conventional Navy down.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if troops from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercising in the United Kingdom are required to notify his Department of the equipment and weapons to be involved; and if he will make a statement.

We expect all non-UK NATO service personnel exercising in the United Kingdom to do so after consulting, and with the concurrence of, the relevant Ministry of Defence authorities, which would be notified in advance of the nature of any weapons and military equipment to be used.

Will the Minister confirm that last July his Department said that British troops were exercising with American troops in West Germany with atomic demolition munitions? Can he give the House an assurance that if permission were asked for these weapons, or even dummy substitutes, to be used on exercises in the United Kingdom his Department would refuse to give authority for their use?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not comment on the presence or otherwise of nuclear weapons. As to the nuclear assets that the British forces have, the hon. Gentleman will see the references to those in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

Is my hon. Friend aware that far from carping at the presence of our allies in this country, most people gladly welcome them?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I suggest that the commitment by the official Opposition to send the Americans packing from this country is the single most disastrous commitment made by any political party since the war.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of the Nimrod AEW Mk. 3.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest position on the Nimrod air early warning system.

By the end of Novermber 1985 some £646 million at outturn prices had been spent or committed on the Nimrod AEW Mk. 3 project; this equates to £882 million at 1985–86 average prices. We are currently in negotiation with GEC Avionics Ltd. and hope shortly to be in a position to announce our decision on the best way forward.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the technology should continue to be available in this country at GEC? Does he further further agree that the jobs associated with that technology should continue to exist in that or a closely-related sector? Does he agree that the public should get value for money from this policy? If he agrees with those three principles, what is he going to do about the mess he is now in?

I agree about the desirability of having British technology kept to the fore. That is important, as are the jobs involved. However, my other job is to ensure that the country gets good value on defence spending, and it is in that context that I have had these negotiations.

Has not a great deal of money already been spent on this project, which was not the design that the RAF wanted in the first place? What is the estimated cost of finishing the project to RAF standards and satisfaction, and what is the time scale involved?

Both those matters are part of the negotiations that I am having with GEC Avionics. We are trying to establish the answer to both those questions—how much it will cost to complete the project, and the likely time scale. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment further on that while the negotiations are in train.

How much more will the project cost? Does my right hon. Friend agree that while we must learn from the lessons of the past, it would now be false economy to abandon the Nimrod project, in view of the fact that all 11 aeroplanes are, to all intents and purposes, ready, thanks to British Aerospace, Woodford, and that it would cost at least between £600 million and £800 million to purchase an American alternative, which would take at least three years to deliver?

That is a good summary of a difficult situation. As always, my objective will be to do my best to see that the RAF gets a product that will do what it wants it to do, on time and at reasonable cost.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the decision was taken 10 years ago to keep the technology and the work force of a British firm together, it was a good decision? This aircraft was then urgently required. It is now 10 years on and we are still waiting for this urgent requirement. When will we finally resolve this matter?

It is of great importance to the defence of the country, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remark about urgency. He will I am sure agree that it is important from all points of view, not least that of the RAF, that we get the equipment to do the job that we have asked it to do.

Is it not a fact that the Mark 3 Nimrod saga is the worst procurement scandal since world war 2? Will my right hon. Friend have the courage to grasp the nettle and not put more good money after bad, but rather procure the E3A Sentry, which works, and which will bring commonality with the rest of air defences in western Europe?

I very much appreciate what my hon. Friend says and note it carefully, but he will understand that I would not want to comment on it while negotiations are in train.

If Nimrod were cancelled, would that be a fundamental or just a cash review? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on Thursday it will be proposed in Cabinet that the Government purchase or lease six AWACS, while a conclusion about the future of the Nimrods is made? Would it be possible to put the GEC system into a different British aeroplane?

Those are mostly points that are part of the negotiations. No decision of any kind has been taken to cancel the Nimrod project at this stage, and I cannot comment on anything that might or might not come up before my right hon. Friends and me in Cabinet meetings. It is far from clear that GEC equipment could just be put into another aircraft. The whole thing holds together as one system.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made any up-to-date assessment of the implications of the Trident programme for conventional defence spending.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence expects to be able to announce a revised costing for the Trident programme fairly soon. The Government's firm view is that, through the procurement of Trident, the United Kingdom can make an immeasurably greater contribution to deterrence and to the preservation of peace than by having conventional forces alone.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is prepared to sacrifice conventional defence so that the Trident programme can go ahead unimpeded?

There is no question of sacrificing conventional defence. My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that we have built up conventional defence expenditure to a vastly higher level than it was when we came to office in 1979. We must consider the totality of deterrence. Our firm view, which was shared by the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman presumably supported, is that a combination of nuclear and conventional deterrence is much better for the security interests of Britain and NATO than resting on conventional weapons only.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that conventional defence would be no defence without a nuclear deterrent? Does he further agree that the Trident programme will enable the twin arms of defence to go ahead together?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is not possible to provide protection against nuclear blackmail through conventional weapons. He is also right in saying that nuclear and conventional defence represent the best combination for Britain. It has been accepted by successive Governments.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that our forces are ill-equipped to carry out their major task, which is to defend Britain? Would not the cancellation of Trident, a proposal which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people, release cash to create jobs in British industry and to build the essential non-nuclear defence equipment that we need?

Our forces are substantially better equipped than they were when the Labour party was in office. I am glad to say that the British people have voted in election after election for the preservation of Britain's independent strategic nuclear deterrent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reasons for our acquiring this new weapon are precisely the same as those which led the Labour party to update Polaris with Chevaline, without even informing the House of Commons of the decision?

My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. Many people will wonder why the Labour party wants to run away from the modernisation of Britain's independent deterrent in opposition when it did the same covertly when in office.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State has made an important statement? The right hon. Gentleman said that there will not be a fundamental review but a cash review and that Trident is fundamental and sacrosanct. Does that mean that the cash review will fall entirely on Britain's conventional forces?

We shall continue with the Trident programme.

If the Government were so foolish as to cancel Trident, how many tank divisions would the money buy?

I shall not give my hon. Friend an answer off the top of my head, but I can tell him that any number of tank divisions would provide no protection against the nuclear blackmail posed by the massive weight of the Soviet Union's nuclear armoury.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to award naval contracts to shipyards in Scotland.

There are currently four frigates and two salvage vessels being constructed in Scottish yards employing directly over 5,000 people. In addition, we are planning to place an order for a range mooring vessel with Scott Lithgow later this year, followed by two lighters, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory terms and conditions.

Is the Minister aware that his answer will be greeted with some disappointment in Scotland where a number of yards are in desperate need of naval orders? Is he further aware of the resentment at Hall Russell in Aberdeen that it was not able to bid for the last order which he mentioned? Will he now recognise that, because it is a designated warship yard, it is in urgent need of a Government order to enable its future to be secured? Cannot he come forward with something more positive than the reply he has just given?

I am sympathetic to the situation in Hall Russell, but I have to say that sadly there is overcapacity in all our warship yards, and future orders have to be won on the basis of competition.

Is it not a scandal that the Government are prepared to spend thousands of millions of pounds on American technology and American jobs, but are not prepared to invest in British jobs and British yards? Why do the Government not do something, for example, about the decline in the British merchant fleet?

The fact is that 95 per cent. of the £8·5 billion procurement spend is spent within the United Kingdom and sustains our defence budget — [Interruption.]—sustains in this country about 1·2 million jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence procurement contracts were post-costed in 1969 and in each subsequent year.

Post-costing of defence procurement contracts began in 1973. The number of contracts which have been post-costed each year has varied between 39 and 107, and the average is 80. I am arranging for the full figures to be published in the Official Report.

When it comes to social security this Government watch every penny and every candle end, and hire an army of inspectors to do it. When it comes to national security they appear to take a very relaxed attitude and allow padding to go on. They seem to think that everything is way above board provided that it is defence expenditure.

The post-costing arrangements cover 50 per cent. of the contracts of the Ministry of Defence by value. I am making arrangements for the post-costing arrangements to be increased further so that they cover a much larger proportion by number as well as by value.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts are currently placed with Dowty Rotol.

It is not the practice to reveal details of contracts placed with individual contractors, as this information is commercial in confidence. However, the overall level of direct business with Dowty Rotol, as indicated by payments made in the last complete financial year, is of the order of £11 million per annum. The number of contracts with the company is 252.

Can the Minister say whether any information concerning contracts with this firm has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions? If so, what decision has the DPP reached, and what action will be taken against this company for fleecing the Ministry of Defence and British taxpayers?

As a result of investigation into Dowty Rotol's management of the CRSP store contract following a Ministry of Defence police investigation, the matter is being considered by the DPP and is, therefore, sub judice.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the effect of recent exchange rate flutuations on the estimated cost of Trident for the current financial year.

The estimate of the cost of Trident is £9·285 million at average 1984–85 prices and at an exchange rate of £1 to $1·38. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has just said, a revised costing for Trident will be announced shortly.

Will the Minister recognise that the majority of people in the country believe that Trident creates a greater threat of our being attacked by nuclear weapons, and that the unpredictability of the exchange rate is a threat to the Government being able to provide adequate conventional defence forces for the country?

The vast majority of the people believe overwhelmingly that Britain ought to retain its own national independent deterrent. That has been shown in election after election. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk, since the Labour party has indicated that it would not increase spending on conventional forces.

In the hopefully unlikely event of the Warsaw pact unleashing its military machine westwards towards the Channel, would we be able to stop it by conventional forces alone?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No amount of spending on conventional weapons could possibly purchase an equivalent amount of deterrence.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what losses in buildings and stores by fire damage have been experienced in the past five years.

Fire damage to Ministry of Defence buildings and stores has resulted in losses of £166 million over the past five years. By far the largest proportion of these losses, estimated by the board of inquiry at £152 million, is attributable to the fire at the Central Ordnance Depot, Donnington, on 24 June 1983.

Can the Minister say to what extent the losses are covered by insurance?

My understanding is that it is not normal practice for the Ministry of Defence to insure.

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

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

When planning her engagements, will my right hon. Friend take time to visit some inner city areas to see the problems for herself and how the Government are trying to tackle them? When she does that, will she make a point of not hobnobbing with those council leaders who back violence and rioters against the police?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that this morning I spent some time looking at the records of the excellent work done in inner cities under the urban programme and under the derelict land grants, and very good it is. I take seriously the point my hon. Friend makes that council leaders who undermine the role of the police do great harm to the prospects of our inner cities.

In view of those brilliantly coordinated, hat-in-ring weekend speeches at Blackpool, does the Prime Minister not intend to lead her Government at the next general election?

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have seen off two Labour Governments and hope to see off a third.

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

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, where unemployment fell by 8 per cent. between September 1984 and the end of last year, a good number of companies are reporting better export prospects, vastly improved working practices and increased profitability? Does she agree that that is in large measure due to the improved business climate encouraged by the Government under her firm leadership?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving so cogently some of the most excellent news. There are areas where unemployment has fallen and jobs are being created. Indeed, our rate of job creation is the highest in Europe but not yet fast enough to bring about the reduction in unemployment everywhere that we wish to see. The work of manufacturing industry at the moment is rising and is excellent.

As the number of people who have been unemployed for more than a year is now larger than the total who were unemployed in 1979, is it not clear that a Prime Minister, who thinks that she is too old to stay and too old to go, should relieve the whole country and get out?

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have not only seen off two Labour Governments; but I have seen off three Labour leaders and I hope to see off a fourth.

That does not convince anybody on the Labour Benches, and it convinces very few Conservatives. It convinces even fewer outside the House. Is it not the case that, given much longer, the Prime Minister will see off the country?

I hope that we shall have a third Conservative Government, which would be greatly to the country's advantage. The greatest disadvantage to the country would be if the Labour party won. That will not happen.

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

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

Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the fact that our aerospace industries exported £4 billion of production last year, representing a 22 per cent. growth over the previous year? In the light of that magnificent achievement by the entire work force of aerospace industries, will she repudiate the constant carping and attempts to denigrate our manufacturing future by the Opposition?

Yes, gladly. I congratulate British Aerospace on its excellent export record. I also congratulate many other manufacturing industries, because last year exports by manufacturing industries reached an all-time high, which is a matter for congratulation to both management and work force alike.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a widespread feeling that petrol prices at the pumps are not coming down anywhere near fast enough? To ensure that they do come down, will she scotch any rumours that the Government intend to increase the price of petrol?

I have had a similar question twice recently, and I have pointed out that I hope that petrol prices will come down further and faster. The right hon. Gentleman is trying a fast one about the Budget, but he will not succeed.

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

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the United Kingdom continues to be the most generous in student support, recent changes in supplementary and housing benefit, allied to an increase in grant of 2 per cent., may cause some hardship to some students? Therefore, does she agree that we should again be looking at a mix of student loans and grants?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that in the United Kingdom student grants are still the best the world over. I note what he says about student loans. I think that perhaps a number of students may take up loans privately, which, of course, they are free to do. I would also point out that the proportion of 18-year-olds going into higher education is the highest ever. That is good news.

Will the Prime Minister give urgent attention to the serious inconsistency which has arisen in connection with the modified colliery review procedure? Is she aware that the assessor in the case of Bates' colliery in Northumberland has upheld the appeal saying that he must take into consideration the social and economic effects upon the community, whereas at Hordern colliery in my constituency the assessor has said that he cannot take such considerations into account? Can that contradiction continue, and if not, what does the right hon. Lady propose to do about it?

That is a matter for the National Coal Board, but I will gladly pass on the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm her commitment to nursery education and to the present statutory school starting age? Does she agree that any increase to six or beyond would be detrimental to the education of children?

Yes, Sir. I gladly reinforce the Government's commitment to more nursery education. The level of provision for nursery children is at its best ever and I gladly confirm that there are no plans whatsoever to raise the school starting age to six years.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House and the country why Land Rover was not offered to the general public in the same way as Jaguar, so as to maintain jobs and employment in Britain?

We would like to have the privatisation of the whole of British Leyland. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are negotiations with General Motors for trucks and Land Rover-Leyland, and I think it best that those should be pursued. Should there be any other offers, they will be considered.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that survival statistics produced by the Government show that women last longer than men?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that deduction. I shall do my best to ensure that it continues to be correct.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 7,000 people were killed or seriously injured in industry, including the construction industry, last year, and that the Government's proposals to relax health and safety legislation will cause even more deaths and more serious disabilities? Will the Prime Minister put workers first for a change, and change her mind about the proposed legislation?

I do not believe that any relaxations in health and safety provisions are occurring that could possibly have that effect, or anything like it. If that were so, we would look at the proposal again.

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

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

As there is quite a lot of pressure now to improve the prospects in the private rented sector of housing to make new housing stock available to the general public, and as the Housing Bill is in Committee, would it not be a good idea if some amendments were put forward and the Government agreed to them?

I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's supplementary question and his desire to increase the stock of houses in the private rented sector. That is something to which we must give our attention. Whether this comes within the long title of the Housing Bill is not for me to say.

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Gainsborough.

I have at present no plans to do So.

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Gainsborough. Is she aware that Gainsborough depends heavily on the agricultural community and that that community needs reassurance, following the debate initiated by the Liberal party last week, in which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) told me that he did not know what his party's quota policy was, in which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said "We have no quota policy", in which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said, "We are against quotas", and in which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, "We are in favour of quotas"? It is asked, "If one alliance, why two parties?" Should we not ask, "If one alliance, why four quota policies?"

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellence of his supplementary question. I do not have time to visit Gainsborough, but there may be some farmers from the Gainsborough area in the audience that I shall be addressing this evening, and I shall have something to say about quotas.

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

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

Was the letter that was sent by the Leader of the House to the chairman of the North Shropshire Conservative Association approved by the Cabinet Committee? Should it not really have been sent to the chairman of the Conservative party?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read the letter. It was a most formidable speech about the excellence of Conservative policies and the necessity for continuity.

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

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

When my right hon. Friend speaks tonight to the National Farmers Union, will she emphasise to it that, once again, European Community expenditure, particularly on the common agricultural policy, is out of control and that the only way in which control can be achieved is by reducing agricultural prices in the EEC?

I shall be addressing very realistically the need to get down these surpluses and the need for both farmers and the Government to work together to do so. However, it must not be done by discriminating against Britain merely because our family farms are larger than those elsewhere in Europe.

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

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

Given the Prime Minister's confidence in her economic policies and her platitudes about unemployment, may I ask how she answers the people of Liverpool, where there is escalating unemployment and a twofold attack by the Government on a Liverpool city council that is prepared to provide jobs for people in the Liverpool area?

If there are any complaints about the Liverpool city council, they should be made to the council. In fact, I would support many of the complaints that have been made. I have confidence in this Government's economic policy. It is the right policy for Britain, for the creation of wealth and for the creation of jobs.