asked the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the effect of President Reagan's current intermediate nuclear forces proposals on the Trident programme.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister realise that the Prime Minister's rejection of the Russian proposal for a ban on intermediate range nuclear weapons in Europe is disgraceful? It is a blow to peace. It means that, as usual, the Prime Minster has got it wrong. Will the Minister confirm that the reason for the rejection is to enable the Government to continue their folly of the deployment of Trident in this country?

The hon. Gentleman has got it comprehensively wrong. The Government remain committed, as do the American Administration, to a zero-zero solution to the INF problem based on a zero-zero which must be expressed in global terms. The possibility of a zero-zero solution based solely on European long-range INF weapons is certainly not satisfactory. The hon. Member seems to forget that SS20s are highly mobile.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to cancel our involvement with Trident it would have a disastrous effect on the various peace initiatives?

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend.

Will the Minister acknowledge that what was encouraging in the Gorbachev proposals of 15 January was that, for the first time, he was proposing the removal of all Soviet and American intermediate range missiles from Europe, while allowing France and Britain to retain their existing nulear missiles provided that they did not modernise them? Is it not a scandal that the Government have vetoed that proposal by rejecting out of hand the suggestion that we should not go ahead with Trident?

I entirely disagree with the hon. Member. There is no possible basis for making prohibition of the modernisation of British and French systems a pre-condition of an INF agreement when the Soviet Union is taking no steps to make prohibition of the modernisation of its strategic forces a pre-conditon of an INF agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were to be an agreed reduction in intermediate range nuclear forces, the importance of modern and effective strategic deterrents in France and the United Kingdom would be enhanced in the defence of Europe?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Is not the Prime Minister's wholly negative response to the initiative—the first constructive, far-reaching initiative to come out of the Soviet Union for almost over a generation — profoundly disappointing? It makes the Government's claim to support multilateral disarmament somewhat threadbare. Are we not approaching the situation where the Government's obsession with Trident will make us losers twice over: first, the extent to which Trident will crowd out other new defence equipment expenditure; and, secondly, the possibility of Trident becoming an effective hurdle to proper disarmament talks at Geneva?

The hon. Gentleman is not correct. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made a thoroughly positive and constructive response in correspondence with Premier Gorbachev. My right hon. Friend is entirely right to rest on the basic principle, which NATO has followed, of a zero-zero global based INF agreement. If the Soviets want a long-range INF agreement, based on equal numbers of like systems, they most certainly can have it. It is for them to accept that fundamentally fair principle in such negotiations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Trident programme is merely a modernisation and updating of the Polaris programme, which has contributed handsomely to the peace of the West? If Opposition Members do not recognise that, at least the Leader of the Opposition recognises that Rosyth is important to the Trident programme, because he deliberately leaves out any comment about Trident in letters which are critical of the Government's plans as he knows of Trident's importance to Scottish workers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have noticed a certain inconsistency between what the Leader of the Opposition says in the Devonport area and what he says in the Rosyth area. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are modernising the British strategic deterrent. Many of us find it difficult to understand why the Opposition, having set in hand a major modernisation of our existing deterrent, should not be prepared to accept a continuance of that policy with a successor system.

Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's rejection—for it was that—of a multilateral attempt to freeze the development of nuclear weapons demonstrates the hollowness of the Government's repeated claim that they believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's determination to go ahead with Trident, despite the fact that it will affect arms talks between the United States and the Soviet Union and mean cuts in conventional forces, a major stumbling block to any agreement on arms control in Europe?

The right hon. Gentleman is wholly incorrect. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made a positive response in an INF context. It must be fundamental to an INF agreement that we deal with equal numbers of like systems. As for Trident, I do not understand the Opposition Front Bench's stance. It seems that they want to rest on wholly conventional defence. I suppose that means that they are prepared to rest behind American nuclear strategic weapons. If so, why do the Opposition continue to propagate their highly irresponsible policy of kicking the Americans out of their nuclear bases in Britain?

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to draw the attention of the public to the Soviet Union's stategic defence programme.

A paper on this subject was placed in the Library on 26 November 1985, and is made available on request to members of the public. The Government have also published a pamphlet entitled "Outer Space and Defences against Ballistic Missiles", which includes a section describing Soviet ballistic missile defence activities. These publications are kept under review, so that updated information can be issued as necessary.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that more attention should be drawn to the Soviet star wars programme to demonstrate the need for more research into SDI in Britain? Does he further agree that knowledge of Soviet plans would justify in the public mind the need to speed up Britain's SDI programme? Is he aware that delays in SDI contracts have resulted partly in 42 jobs being lost in Newcastle at International Research and Development?

I am grateful to and agree with my hon. Friend. Some people's attitude to the balance of these systems seems amazing. The Soviets have been engaged in such activities since the 1960s, and since the early 1980s they have been modernising their anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow.

Was the Secretary of State consulted about the visit of Mr. Clarance Robinson? Why did he leave the country without seeing—

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's last few words were lost in the noise. Could he repeat his question?

Was the Secretary of State consulted about the visit of Mr. Clarance Robinson, and for what reasons did he go back to the United States without having talked to British industry?

I was not consulted about the visit of Mr. Clarance Robinson. It was therefore entirely up to him whether he came or went.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about purchases by his Department of military equipment from Land Rover and about exports by Land Rover for military applications.

Land Rover is a major supplier of vehicles to the services. Current Ministry of Defence orders on the company are for 4,500 of the new 110 model. A substantial order for military versions of the shorter wheelbase 90 model is expected in the near future. For many years Land Rover has been very successful in exporting its range of vehicles to defence customers. I am confident that the military versions of its latest 90 and 110 models will prove even more attractive than their predecessors in the overseas defence market.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he think that any of those exports would be put at risk if the ownership of Land Rover passed out of British hands? For example, has not General Motors said that it would discriminate as to the countries to which it would sell?

The future ownership of Land Rover is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. The Ministry of Defence has more than 20,000 Land Rovers in service. We look to the company to honour existing and planned orders, to provide adequate customer support in terms of spares and components and also to continue United Kingdom research and development and manufacture.

The House will be interested to hear that the Department of Trade and Industry will decide who will be Britain's main defence suppliers. In view of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given, would it not be correct and better to keep Land Rover under the control of a British company in Britain, able to meet Britain's defence needs, and not be at the whim of Detroit?

We all heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the purchases by his Department and the military exports of Land Rover would not be affected if part of the company were owned by a foreign concern? Are not many suppliers to the Ministry of Defence also not entirely British?

My hon. Friend is right on the latter point. In fact, the Bedford subsidiary of General Motors is a substantial supplier of medium tracks. We have about 21,000 of its medium tracks in our fleet. As a point of interest, in 1985 the Ministry of Defence took 6 per cent. of the total output of Land Rover, Solihull.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has instituted into the safety and effectiveness of North American air defence command and control systems.

NORAD's safety and effectiveness is a matter for the United States and Canadian Governments. The British Government's involvement is limited to the component of NORAD at RAF Fylingdales.

What evaluation has the Minister made of the work of Mr. Daniel Ford, who made a detailed investigation of the subject, which was published in the New Yorker and later in a book, and which drew attention to the highly dangerous aspect of relying on apparently sophisticated machinery?

I have not made a study of that publication, but I shall certainly inquire about it. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, NORAD is an early warning system which has been in existence over the lifetime of successive Governments. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had any anxiety about safety he would have pursued that with the leader of his party during the currency of the Lib-Lab pact.

In the course of Ministry of Defence research into the effectiveness of North American air defence command, will my right hon. Friend study the key role played by the National Guard and the United States Air Force reserve squadrons which constitute well over half of the front line and operate highly effectively?

I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. Undoubtedly, in the North American and United States context a very important role is played by the National Guard in the air defence of North America. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the context of the RAF Reserve, we have been trying to make increased use of our own reservists and volunteers for air defence purposes.

In the context of the safety of American air defence, will the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied with the safety of the 16 cruise missiles which are currently circulating on Salisbury plain and the 45 support vehicles which are associated with them? Will he tell us if all those 60 missiles are live and what would be the number of people killed as a result of an attack on those missiles by anybody else?

We are satisfied with their safety. As we have said to the House on many occasions, no live missiles are used during training exercises.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conclude his long-term costing of the defence programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the long-term costings of the defence programme.

In the normal way I shall be considering the long-term costing over the next few months.

As the Secretary of State is obviously having some trouble finding the money to finance even the conventional defence of this country, should he not have been exerting a little more pressure on the Prime Minister so that she would not give such a strident reply to the Soviet Union when it made a proposal which would have enabled us to abandon Trident and save £10,000 million by doing so?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thoroughly support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's constructive response to Mr. Gorbachev. The long-term costing takes place every year.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a close analysis of the long-term costing would show that the cost of Trident is such that we shall finish up with the most expensive defence force in the whole of Europe, but probably the worst equipped and trained conventional forces?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As he probably knows, there is a question down later on the Order Paper about the latest costing of Trident. In general, it takes on average only 3 per cent. of the defence budget, and by no stretch of the imagination could it be said to be a major inroad into the conventional programme.

Will my right hon. Friend tell Lord Trefgarne to keep his hands off RAF North Luffenham in my constituency? If my noble Friend carries on talking about this, while today's question might be a Sidewinder near him, the next one will be effectively aimed.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's great concern about the RAF station in his constituency. My noble Friend will be looking at this matter closely.

If, as we all hope, the GEC system for Nimrod is perfected, will the Exchequer be rewarded for its investment if subsequently the system is sold to Lockheed?

That is another question, but I can say that if the Nimrod system, as it has been designed, is accepted, it will be against competition from other possible suppliers and will give the best possible value for money.

What effects will the coinciding of the Tornado programme with the first years of the Trident programme have on the planned re-equipment of the British Army of the Rhine, given the 7 per cent. real terms cuts in defence spending after the current year? Is it not a fact that any incoming Government after the next general election will have to undertake a major defence programme?

That is not the case. Every year there is a long-term costings review, and this year will be no exception. Defence expenditure in real terms is between 20 and 30 per cent. above what it was in 1979. Therefore, the position is better than it was when the Government came to power.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in peacetime there has never been a period during which long-term defence expenditure has not been looked at in depth, so that there is nothing new or novel in what is happening now?

My hon. Friend is right. There has to be a continuing look at all the plans for defence expenditure if proper value is to be got for money. That is the principal objective in my Department.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the defence White Paper for the next financial year is not likely to appear much before the end of May? If so, does it not follow that the House will not be able to debate it until at least three months of the next financial year, to which the White Paper relates, have gone by?

No final decision has yet been taken as to the precise date of publication of the defence White Paper this year. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it will not ve very different from the date on which it was published last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of orders to date won by United Kingdom firms to participate in the strategic defence initiative research and development programme.

Seven contracts have so far been publicly announced by British companies for participation in the United States SDI research programme.

Will the Minister comment on the fact that there are difficulties in negotiations between West Germany and America on the number of contracts being secured, and the fact that the former Secretary of State for Defence promised £1·5 billion of the so-called star wars crock of gold, but it looks now as if there will be only £300 million available out of a total of £26 billion?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, if I heard the hon. Gentleman aright—I can hardly believe that I did—what happens in Germany is a matter for the German Government.

The House wants not fine words but evidence from the Minister. Will he confirm that late last year there was pessimism among United Kingdom firms, which was justified in the light of the problems with the Trident programme? Will the hon. Gentleman conduct a survey of firms so that we can have evidence, because the House shares such pessimism?

I see no reason to be pessimistic. The agreement was signed at the beginning of December, and already seven contracts have been signed. They are highly important, and the hon. Gentleman ought to be encouraging British firms to go out and sell their technology in the United States. We have an enormous amount to offer. There is no reason to think that British companies, which lead in defence technology in so many areas, cannot capture a significant part of that market.

Is it not a fact that the SDI programme, whatever the cost and whatever the orders at present, will create thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom? That being so, is it not wrong for the Opposition to attack arrangements which will yield so many jobs for our people?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is, of course, something nonsensical and inconsistent in the Opposition's attitude. They suggest that if there is an agreement with the United States, our scientists will emigrate. Somehow they believe that if there is no agreement, our scientists will stay at home. That is nonsense.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the United States Secretary of State for Defence on the Trident programme.

My right hon. Friend will be having his first meetings with the United States Defence Secretary for both bilateral and NATO discussions later this month.

Will the Minister make sure, when he has these discussions, that they are concerned solely with helping British technology to remain in Britain, not exporting British technology to be taken over by the Americans? I mean that not in an anti-American way, but in a pro-British way.

My hon. Friend's question arises in connection with the Trident programme. In so far as we can manufacture the main elements of the Trident programme in this country, we are doing so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, over half the procurement of the Trident programme will fall to this country, including much high technology equipment.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that most of the contracts for the Trident programme have been agreed in substance between the two countries and that the programme will go ahead as it should?

The programme will certainly go ahead as scheduled. We believe that the British people, in their wisdom, will ensure the continuation of a Government committed to maintaining that vital element of our security.

Instead of discussing the Trident programme with representatives of a foreign power, would it not be more appropriate to discuss it with the people of Scotland, where the Government plan to locate the Trident base? If the Minister did that, does he realise that he would find virtually no support for Trident among the Scottish people, with the exception of the Secretary of State, who is out on a limb and completely out of touch with Scottish public opinion on this as on so many other matters?

When it comes to the next election, we will see what view those living in the Rosyth area and in Clydeside take of the Government's defence policies compared with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to discuss the defence expenditure of member states.

Defence expenditure is the responsibility of national Governments. My NATO colleagues and I will discuss allied defence planning matters at the spring meeting of the Defence Planning Committee.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the majority of NATO member states have failed to honour their 1978 commitments to increase defence expenditures by 3 per cent. in real terms to prevent NATO from falling further behind the Warsaw Pact? How is it planned to hold those member states to account?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that many of our NATO colleagues have not succeeded in fulfilling their commitment to a 3 per cent. real terms increase in defence spending over the past six years. That will certainly be a topic for discussion between my colleagues and I when we next meet. I note what my hon. Friend says.

Could we be clear? Is the Secretary of State saying that he heard nothing from the British embassy in Washington about the visit of Mr. Clarance Robinson and that Mr. Clarance Robinson never asked for security clearance?

Order. Has this anything to do with NATO?

I can confirm that we heard nothing of the visit of that gentleman, but we have asked for a report about it.

Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to the effects on our NATO colleagues involved with the potential manufacture of the European fighter aircraft if Spain votes to withdraw from NATO and therefore feels constrained to pull out of the European fighter aircraft project?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. It will be up to the Spanish people to make the extremely important decision whether to remain within NATO. The question whether Spain would, or would not, continue as a partner in the European fighter aircraft project would have to be addressed if the vote this week were to go the wrong way.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to Vickers shipbuilding yards.

My right hon. Friend hopes to do so when it can be fitted into his programme.

Will my hon. Friend note that, when he and/or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pay a visit to the shipyards in Barrow, they can be assured of a warm welcome from a company which has been returned to the private sector, with local management and local employees? Will my hon. Friend note that the welcome will be that much the warmer if my colleagues take the opportunity when they visit to announce the signing of the first contract for Trident submarines?

I note what my hon. Friend says. I know that he very much welcomed the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend may recall the 1974 Labour manifesto, which referred to an irreversible shift of wealth and power to working people. That is what is happening at the Barrow shipyards.

Would not jobs in Barrow and in Cumbria as a whole have been much better safeguarded if Vickers had been retained in the public sector? What assurances can the hon. Gentleman give the House that thousands of jobs will not be lost in Barrow as a direct result of this privatisation?

It is for the hon. Gentleman to give assurances about jobs, because everyone in Barrow wants to know how the Labour party will maintain employment in Barrow if it is going to cancel Trident and if, at the same time, it says that it will not increase spending on conventional defence.

Before the hon. Gentleman goes to Barrow will he look again at Friday's statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Will the money which is supposed to be saved by this profit-sharing deal, which is an integral part of the management buy-out, go to the Treasury, or to the Ministry of Defence?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to answer another written question, when he will amplify what he said in his statement on Friday. As the hon. Gentleman knows, matters relating to the privatisation of Vickers are for the Department of Trade and Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the performance to date of the Trident D5 guidance system.

Yes, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in order to achieve the planned accuracy, the Trident D5 warhead will require in-flight mid-course correction from an American satellite? Will the British Trident warhead require a similar facility? What steps has the hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that we shall have independence of operation?

The guidance sub-system in the missile is of United States' design and supply. What the hon. Gentleman has just said, and what he said in his article in The Guardian, which I read carefully, is not correct. All the facilities with respect to information for targeting and to guidance, which are essential to the effective operation of the Trident force, are under our operational control.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it was reported that Secretary Weinberger was mystified by the defence policy of the so-called alliance in so far as it relates to Trident? Will my hon. Friend therefore explain to Mr. Weinberger that the reason why the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) trots around after the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) contradicting him is that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays the alliance's policies follow the Liberal party, on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays they follow the SDP, and on Sunday the defence policy of the alliance is closed?

I note what my hon. Friend said, Today's allegation by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) which is a new twist to the alliance's allegation about Trident, is totally incorrect.

What is the accuracy of the guidance system for cruise and Trident?

Obviously that is not a matter on which I can comment publicly.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the cost of the Trident missile programme.

The Trident programme has been re-costed as part of the annual long-term costing of the defence programme. By convention, that costing assumes exchange rates prevailing last June, which for the dollar gives a rate of £1 equalling $1·28. On that basis, the revised estimate for Trident is £9,869 million at average 1985–86 prices, an increase of £584 million over last year's estimate. Of this increase, £324 million reflects a lower exchange rate than was assumed last year. The remaining increase of £260 million, or only 2·8 per cent., reflects inflation offest by real cost reductions arising from better definition as the programme progresses. Costs, therefore, are firmly under control and I am glad to say that the programme remains on time for an in-service date of the mid-1990s.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that detailed answer. Although the rise in the pound against the dollar since the date quoted will further reduce the cost of Trident, is he aware that many people remain concerned about the way in which expenditure on Trident may curtail spending on other important defence programmes?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. As he has indicated, the calculation of costing has been done deliberately by me on exactly the same basis on which, by convention, it is done every year, that is, basing the dollar at the rate it was in June of the previous year. On the weight of the Trident programme as a whole, I can confirm that this leaves it still as averaging only 3 per cent. of the defence programme, or about 6 per cent. of the equipment programme. That is well within our means for such an important system to our defence.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that last year when the costing was given it was the Government's intention to keep level funding in the defence budget, but now the increased cost of Trident has to be borne on a defence budget that is being cut by 7 per cent. over the next three years in real terms? Can he really go on claiming that he can support the conventional defence effort that is currently planned?

Very much so, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman may notice in the publication that I am putting in the Library that the rate of inflation in the Trident programme this year is very much lower than that of the defence programme as a whole, because of the offset of other savings that we have made. In that way, it is well within what we can afford.

As totally conventional defence, however much it costs, would not in the last resort be able to deter a nuclear power bent on the conquest of the United Kingdom, is not Trident cheap at the price and jolly good value?

My hon. Friend is right. There is no other way at a comparable price that we can so secure peace for the future.

Is it not the case that the increased cost of Trident announced today is bound to come out of the budget for conventional defence spending, since, with the conventional defence budget static or falling in real terms and the cost of Trident increasing, there is no other place from which the expenditure on Trident can come? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the American end of the cost is almost totally out of the control of the British Government, because it is dependent on the exchange rate and on the cost charged by American armaments manufacturers?

As the right hon. Gentleman will notice, I have deliberately kept the calculation on costing within the normal convention of the exchange rate, which is not, as it happens, altogether favourable to the case I wish to put. I hope he will regard that as fair. On the balance of the programme, the key factor is that the total weight of Trident in the defence budget is very small; for instance, smaller than the Tornado programme. As it secures our safety and defence for the future, I should have thought that most people would regard it as an extremely good bargain.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that to spend money on nuclear weapons to this extent has the effect of squeezing conventional forces out of meaningful existence in many roles? Would it not be much better for Britain to have meaningful conventional defence rather than to go on with the nuclear pretence?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman has lost touch with reality. We are looking at a defence budget which is already well over 20 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979 when the Government took office. To talk about that sort of effect on the conventional forces is unrealistic. If any attempt were made to produce a comparable effect for our defences by conventional means only, it would cost vastly more than the Trident programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be in a position to put forward specific proposals for moving defence establishments to the north of England; and if he will make a statement.

This is a matter for continuing review as opportunities arise, such as when major investment is required, but as I said in answer to my hon. Friend on 11 February at column 440 of the Official Report, all proposals will need to stand on their economic and operational merits.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the imbalance between the north and south of Britain in the number of jobs for service men and civilians, and will he ask our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for funds to correct that topsy-turvy imbalance?

It is for my hon. Friend to approach the Treasury for extra funds. Seventy per cent. of service personnel and 64 per cent. of civilians whom we employ are based in the south-east and south-west regions combined.

As there is little prospect of a defence establishment moving to the north-east of England in the next year or so, will the Minister at least think in terms of our high unemployment level when he considers contracts such as that for an auxiliary oiler replacement vessel, which could well be placed at the Swan Hunter yard on Tyneside?

The hon. Gentleman is being clever in moving to a completely different topic. Tenders for the AOR vessels are being evaluated. Tenders are in from Swan Hunter and Harland and Wolff.

Will my hon. Friend also take into consideration the fact that ex-service men who have served their country and enjoy a pension are banned from jobs by Cleveland county council and so their employment prospects are even further reduced? Will he bear that in mind when seeking somewhere to establish a place where ex-service men can work?

I am appalled to hear what my hon. Friend says. The behaviour of Cleveland county council sounds appalling.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate, for the latest date for which figures are available, the total annual costs of all British nuclear weapons currently in deployment.

It is not the practice to make available details of year-by-year expenditure on nuclear weapons. However, estimated expenditure on the nuclear strategic force in 1985–86 is shown in table 2·3 of volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985".

Is not that a chronic and enormous waste of money, which would be better spent on social provision and jobs in peaceful manufacture? Will not the billions of pounds spent on Trident be a further appalling imposition, which will not make the British people any safer? Should we not be seriously negotiating on the Gorbachev proposals for nuclear disarmament?

Our expenditure on deterrence is a fraction of what we would have to spend if deterrence broke down.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that spending on nuclear weapons as a proportion of a total defence budget has remained remarkably constant under Labour and Conservative Governments in recent years, never dipping below 1 per cent. or rising above 3 per cent.? Does he agree that if spending on nuclear weapons represents just 2·8 per cent. of our total defence budget, that is a remarkably good investment for the British public to maintain their peace and security?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is an extremely cost-effective and relatively cheap insurance policy.

How can the Government claim that the money is well spent, especially in view of the announcement of the £9·8 billion that is spent on Trident, when the same Government could not find more than 40p for the old-age pensioners a few days ago and yesterday came to the Dispatch Box and announced that prescription charges will go up by 1,000 per cent.? Do the Government not have a strange language of priorities?

The Government can justify the good sense of the expenditure on the modernisation of our strategic deterrents in exactly the same way as the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported no doubt justified their expenditure on the modernisation of the Chevaline deterrent.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the value of work and jobs which are likely to accrue to Scottish-based contractors and professional firms from the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement.

It is not possible to break down estimates of work and jobs in terms of geographical area, firms or constituencies. However, it is currently predicted that on average 8,500 direct and 6,500 indirect job opportunities will be created throughout the procurement period. The number of jobs will run at 15,000 direct and 12,000 indirect during the peak years.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Can he assure me that, where appropriate professional and contracting expertise exists in Scottish firms, they will at least receive due consideration when tendering?

I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance.

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

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.

Now that the Government's efforts to save the tin dealers seems finally to have failed, can my Cornish miners assume that the £50 million offered and now saved can instead be used to save the Cornish tin mines? If the answer to that question is no, can the Prime Minister tell us about the priorities that offer help to the dealers but not to the miners?

The £50 million was offered provided that other countries of the 22 agreed with us on a scheme to secure a return to orderly trading in the tin market. They did not, so the £50 million, of course, is withdrawn. With regard to the specific question the hon. Gentleman asks, it is too early to say. Cornish mining companies will be better able to assess their commercial prospects once a market price for tin has been re-established. The Department of Trade and Industry is willing to consider grants towards projects to make the mines competitive in the new market situation. However, no decisions can be taken until a realistic assessment of viability can be made.

Can I press my right hon. Friend further on this matter? While I recognise that the Government did take the lead in putting forward the £50 million to try to save the international aspects, can she please treat as a matter of utmost urgency the plight of the Cornish tin mining industry, particularly Geevor mine in my own constituency?

I am aware of all the mines and of the importance of securing employment in Cornwall. We shall be in a better position to judge when we know the price of tin, once the markets have reopened. As I indicated, we shall be willing to consider grants towards projects to make the mines competitive in the new market situation.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether she agrees that her important exchange of letters with Mr. Gorbachev should be published in the public interest, and may I ask whether she will seek to ensure that that publication can take place? Meanwhile, may I ask her whether she recalls saying in November 1983 that the best Christmas present that President Yuri Andropov could give the West would be to dismantle the SS20 missiles and accept the zero option? Now that General Secretary Gorbachev has publicly made exactly that offer in his 15 January statement, why will she not at least pursue discussions based on the proposal to get SS20s out of Europe altogether?

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that that is the offer that Mr. Gorbachev has made. He has not made a total zero-zero offer. He has made an offer which would mean that a number of the missiles went to the far east of the country and could, of course, be moved back. That is totally different from a zero-zero option.

Is the Prime Minister really saying that she has moved the goalposts so far as to inhibit the removal of all intermediate weapons from the east and west of Europe because of the problems relating to Asia? Will she, I repeat, pursue the question of the dismantling of SS20s, so that not only the menace in Europe is removed, but there is a possibility of ensuring that no additional menace arises even in the far east?

The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is no point in merely moving weapons to a place from which they could be moved back to be a menace to this country. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what Mr. Andropov said when dealing with certain proposals. He said, "We are not a naive people." What a pity that the right hon. Gentleman does not take that advice to heart.

On such an important issue that affects the fate of all of us and, indeed, future generations, I hope that the Prime Minister will be a little more rational in her approach and will not simply resort to party political bickering. The right hon. Lady says that she wants to concentrate on achieving realistic, balanced and verifiable arms control measures. Why does she not pursue the possibility of securing a freeze in nuclear arms deployment, since plainly that is the most realistic, the most balanced and the most verifiable of all arms control measures?

There are very good reasons why one should not have a freeze. First, one freezes in imbalances. Secondly, unless one modernises the strategic deterrent it soon ceases to be a deterrent. That, presumably, is why the right hon. Gentleman's party modernised the Chevaline.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Left-wing councillors in Lambeth and Liverpool deserve what they are getting at the moment for their wilful misconduct towards their ratepayers? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that to see the Leader of the Opposition trying to get off this hook is a pathetic sight? Will she confirm that this Government will maintain the laws on surcharge and disqualification as the only reasonable remedy for making sure that Left-wing councillors throughout the country do not continue, wantonly and extravagantly, to use ratepayers' money?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Local councillors have a duty to set a legal rate by the appropriate time. It is vital to maintain the sanctions of law to ensure that they carry out their duties properly. That we shall continue to do.

As the Governments of both the Soviet Union and the United States are keen to secure an arms control agreement in Europe, why does the Prime Minister insist on going ahead with the escalation that is caused by the Trident programme when those Governments are content to leave the British and French deterrents out of the count as things stand at present? Does the Prime Minister not accept that the Trident missile is becoming a two-time loser; first, because of its effect upon our defence equipment programme, and, secondly, because it is becoming an obstacle to an arms control agreement?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, Trident is not an intermediate weapon but a strategic weapon. It is vital that we keep our independent nuclear deterrent, and it is not a deterrent unless it is modernised. Therefore, we shall go ahead with the modernisation.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider abolishing the Property Services Agency and putting the work for which it is responsible out to private enterprise, in the interests of greater efficiency? Is it not a paradox that although the Government are urging the abolition of direct labour departments the Property Services Agency is being retained?

Quite a lot of the work that the Property Services Agency manages is already put out to private enterprise. At the moment we have no plans to privatise the entire agency.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that if prescription charges had risen in line with the retail prices index since 1979, they would rise in April from 35p to 37p, not from £2 to £2.–20? Does she not understand that this is nothing but a tax on those who are sick?

No. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the enormous exemptions from prescription charges. He knows that these will remain and that they will remain the same. Moreover, the proportion of the family practitioners service that is financed by charges is lower now—at under 10 per cent.—than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The income received from charges provides about £500 million for the National Health Service. That is equal to 20,000 doctors, 65,000 nurses or 500,000 operations. Without the charges, what would the hon. Gentleman do about that?

In view of the rise in violent crime and, in particular, the number of appallingly brutal cases of rape, would it not be appropriate for the courts to impose savage sentences as a deterrent? Is it not time that hon. Members re-examined their consciences to see whether they were right—against the wishes of their constituents--to take away from the courts the right to impose sentences of corporal or capital punishment?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Lord Chief Justice has set out a very clear and firm position for the courts in rape cases, and the sentences which should be imposed. I have no doubt that they will follow that. His guideline judgment was, in general, very well received. As my hon. Friend also knows, legislation restoring capital punishment would have to get through this House and the other place. We have already had one debate on that subject. My hon. Friend knows my views, but it is a matter for the House to decide according to its vote.

Has the Prime Minister read the third report of the Public Accounts Committee, which clearly shows that the British Telecom issue was hopelessly underpriced? Is she aware that a number of people in the City have made vast sums out of that underpricing? If she must continue the privatisation programme, will she at least compare the method of selling such public assets with the way in which Government stock is sold through the Government Broker, getting a very fine rate by releasing it at suitable intervals, at prime prices?

I have not read the report. However, the privatisation of British Telecom was a huge success, and enabled enormous numbers—[Interruption.—of people who worked for British Telecom, as well as small savers, to obtain shares which they would never have obtained under a Labour Government.

While the Government are contemplating some considerable alterations to the criminal law of England, will they bear in mind a slightly more modest alteration to the law of England, which is already part of the law of Scotland, and to which objection has never been taken? I refer to the fact that pleas are not taken until after the jury, which is to try the case, is sworn. In that way, the outrage over the Patrick Reilly case would never have arisen.

I shall, of course, pass on my hon. and learned Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. On that particular case, it is not open to me or to the House to suggest that the defendant was guilty of an offence of which he was acquitted. Obviously I can say nothing more than that.

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

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

If the Prime Minister is so proud of her Government's record on the Health Service

Rightly so.

If the Prime Minister is so wrongly proud of her Government's record on the Health Service, can she tell the House and the people of London why St. Thomas' hospital announced last night that it would be able to take only emergency cases from August, why Bloomsbury health authority is having to make major cuts in provision for my constituents and why 221 hospitals have closed in the past five years? Is that not the reality behind the misleading statistics she always uses?

On overall expenditure, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, this Government have an excellent record on the Health Service, the best record of any Government since the Health Service began. Being a London Member, the hon. Gentleman is aware that we who represent London constituencies have sometimes seen resources transferred from London to the north to increase facilities there. Does he object to such equality between the north and the south?

Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the impending request by the European Commission for a £1 billion supplementary budget for 1986? Will she be sure to turn down such a request, as it breaches the financial discipline pledged to this House in return for the increase in VAT contributions?

We shall fight it hard, as we usually do. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is outside what we would expect and that we should not be expected to contribute even more to the European Community.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March 1985.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that over the past few years a great many people on all sides of the print and newspaper industry in Scotland have worked a great many hours to create good trade union-management relations, so that the Scottish newspaper industry has one of the best no strike records in Europe? In view of her readiness to condemn bad union practices, will she now condemn the absolutely suicidal management policies of Robert Maxwell, which have resulted in the removal of the Scottish Daily Record from the news stands today?

It is vital that the newspaper industry uses the latest technology. I remember visiting the offices of the Glasgow Herald on the paper's 200th anniversary, where the latest technology was being used without problems. I hope that the same will be true for the Daily Record after negotiations.