asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received representations about the defence implications of the growth in size of the Soviet merchant shipping fleet.

My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations specifically on this matter, but a number of hon. Members have referred in the House to the defence significance of the Soviet merchant marine, and I did so myself in opening the debate on the Royal Navy on 6 February.

Concerned as we are with the maintenance of peace on the seas in the western Mediterranean and elsewhere, does not the dramatic increase in the size of Soviet merchant shipping—by 20 per cent. during the last nine years, at a time when the United Kingdom merchant fleet has declined by 56 per cent.—demand that we should review and maintain a large merchant fleet of our own? Will my right hon. Friend consider raising the subject of the size of the Soviet merchant shipping fleet and its use for defence purposes in arms reduction negotiations?

As my hon. Friend knows, I addressed the issue of the defence significance of the Soviet merchant marine. I have some doubts as to whether it is an appropriate subject for arms control negotiations, given the difficulty of establishing whether particular vessels are essentially for defence or civil purposes. I take the basic thrust of what my hon. Friend has said. As he knows, our Department takes a very close interest in, and is concerned about, merchant shipping requirements for our own defence purposes. I draw his attention to last year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates," in which we said that, in respect of the particular categories that we require for defence purposes, the numbers are at present such that we can discharge our NATO obligations, with the exception of stem trawlers for minesweeping. However, we are well on the way towards devising a satisfactory alternative to meet that requirement.

During the Falklands war this Tory Government called on the Merchant Navy to redouble its efforts in that campaign, and most of those involved did so. As soon as the war was over, the Government decided to reduce the merchant shipping fleet right around the coast of Britain. Instead of talking about the Soviet shipping fleet, would it not be sensible to build up the British merchant shipping fleet and create more jobs?

I certainly agree with the early part of what the hon. Gentleman said. The Merchant Marine responded magnificently to the demands placed on it at the time of the Falklands conflict, and I am sure it would do so again. General policy on the Merchant Marine is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House that we are watching extremely closely the pattern of the availability of merchant shipping for our own defence purposes.

Given the defence implications of the rundown of our merchant fleet, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that the Ministry of Defence should look closely at ways in which our defence budget can be used specifically to bolster the falling numbers of our Merchant Marine to help it counter the threat from the growth in the Soviet merchant fleet?

My hon. Friend will be aware that in times of emergency we have power to take up individual ships that are under the British flag. He will also know that we spend considerable sums under the defence budget and that major orders are in prospect. We are making our own direct contribution through defence funds by building up the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service, which is for direct defence purposes.

The Minister should know that no one appreciates the complacency of the Government on this matter. What are the defence implications of flagging out of the BP fleet, because that is one of the biggest drains on the potential contribution of the Merchant Marine? If it were to carry on at this rate, we would be gravely at risk.

I totally reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. There is no complacency whatever by Defence Ministers. BP tankers have been flagged out to the Bermudan flag. If a British-owned ship is flagged out on to the register of a dependent territory, it is still subject to United Kingdom Government requisitioning and is available for defence purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what further proposals he has to encourage recruitment to the Army YTS by visits to schools; and what were the most recent figures of recruitment in the previous year.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the YTS in the armed services.

Between the start of the scheme in August 1983 and February 1986 some 2,700 young people have been accepted for the armed services youth training scheme, and almost 950 trainees have subsequently transferred to regular engagements in the services. Some 900 young people were accepted for the scheme in the last year, of whom 129 were for the Army. We are continuing to promote the scheme actively, including through-school visits by all three services.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether visits to schools are being increased? Does he agree that such visits are of great value?

I am grateful for the question about the importance of visits to schools to promote the armed services youth training scheme. That is an important matter and one of the high priority tasks for the services careers information officers. I understand that this year they are planning to visit several thousand schools, colleges and universities.

Having regard to the value that many young people could gain from a period of service in the armed forces and the fact that the youth training scheme has been extended for two years, will my right hon. Friend do more to promote the youth training scheme, particularly in relation to the Army? Is there any reason why more than 10,000 young people could not benefit from a scheme of this kind?

I assure my hon. Friend that promoting the scheme is given an important priority. I hope that young people will be encouraged by the fact that the figures show that about one third of the young men and women who take part in the armed services youth training scheme have transferred to regular engagements in the services. They have moved from a temporary training scheme to very good full-time permanent jobs.

My right hon. Friend said that only 129 young people accepted for YTS had been recruited to the Army—an extraordinarily low figure. Does he agree that that low number stems from a reluctance by the professionals to take on what they might describe as conscripts? Will he do much more to encourage the scheme in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)? Enormous benefits could flow from that.

I stress that during the operation of the scheme the Army has made available many more places than there have been applicants who have met the requisite standards. So far—this may well change—people have been attracted particularly to the RAF and, to some extent, the Royal Navy. In the past year or so, the Army has had more difficulty in attracting applicants. We have been looking closely at that position and want to remedy it.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence which projects his Department has approved and funded on strategic defence initiative-related research in United Kingdom universities.

The hon. Lady's question is based on a misunderstanding. It has been made clear that the United Kingdom is not contributing funds to the United States SDI research programme, nor is it subject to approval by the Ministry of Defence.

Given the fears expressed many times in the House on the dangers of SDI, how can anyone be expected to trust the Government when they have shown that they are ready to deceive the House, the people of Britain and our European allies by mounting a senseless, dangerous attack on another country—Libya?

I am surprised that the hon. Lady is not more enthusiastic about SDI, because the Labour party advocates a non-nuclear defence policy. It is extraordinary that the hon. Lady had nothing to say about the enormous efforts being made by the Soviet Union. Why did she say nothing about the extensive programme employing thousands of scientists on high energy lasers and about the space launch system which the Soviet Union is developing, which is essential for a space-launched weapons system?

What guidance has my hon. Friend arranged for universities so that they may know of the participation and research contracts that can be made available to British industry and universities to assist and benefit from the SDI programme, which we should encourage?

I have written to universities and institutions of higher education which we think could be involved in the programme. We have explained to them what our SDI office can do. We shall arrange a series of briefings in which we hope institutions of higher education will participate.

Has the hon. Gentleman read the United States Department of Defence report by the Eastport committee? Is he aware that the report characterises SDI as being likely in its early stages to be more effective as an offensive rather than a defensive system?

President Reagan has made it clear that it is intended as a defensive system. Our commitment is to the research programme. That programme will establish the basis of the project. It implies nothing beyond research.

Are funds being made available for the possible study of a European defence initiative?

As I explained in answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), the project is funded by the United States Government. A European architecture study is obviously an important aspect of that. It will be carried on bilaterally between the companies and countries of Europe and the United States.

The Minister said that universities should not need the approval of the Ministry of Defence on work they did under the SDI. What check does the Ministry of Defence make of any of our secrets which may go to the United States? What information does the Ministry demand from universities as part and parcel of the work that they do on SDI?

The universities are subject to the normal security procedures to which defence contractors are subject. That does not mean that, over and above security considerations, we have a veto over the work that they do.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress of talks within NATO on the force goal requiring the United States to modernise its chemical weapons stocks with binary munitions.

I cannot add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 7 March.

During Britain's chairmanship of the committee at the Geneva disarmament conference on chemical warfare, what initiatives do the Government propose to take to attempt to get an agreement on limitations on chemical warfare? Will the Government undertake not to work counter to an agreement by conniving with the United States to end the 16-year moratorium on the production of chemical weapons?

On the first part of the question, we shall be using our chairmanship to try to achieve progress towards a comprehensive verifiable ban on chemical weapons. That is highly desirable and a fundamental objective of the Government's arms control policy. Towards that end, we have, over the last year or so, tabled a number of papers to try to make progress on the verification issue.

"A force goal requiring the United States to modernise its chemical weapons stocks with binary munitions is being discussed collectively within NATO in accordance with normal Alliance procedures."—[Official Report, 7 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 313.]

Does not the wearing of protective clothing reduce the effectiveness of troops by 50 per cent., and is it not a fact that the Soviet Union ends all its exercises with either chemical or nuclear warfare, to which we have no answer? In the event of failure to reach an agreement at Geneva, should we not have these stocks as soon as possible?

The United States has a particular force goal proposal which is presently under consideration with the NATO authorities. This would enable it to modernize its own chemical stocks with binary munitions. I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend about the serious extent to which the wearing of the nuclear, biological and chemical warfare kit degrades the operational effectiveness of forces. If one side can oblige the other to fight in such protective kit but not be so encumbered itself, it confers a major operational advantage on that side.

Will the Minister give the House an unequivocal undertaking that he will not embark on the lunacy of producing chemical weapons again? Will he give the armed forces the assurance that they will always have the very best of protective clothing made available to them?

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the latter assurance that he seeks. We are continually trying to improve the protection of our own forces against the massive and very serious chemical weapon threat that they face from the Soviet Union.

"The facts are that Britain abandoned its chemical warfare capability in the late 1950s. There has been no change in Government policy since then, nor is any change now proposed."—[Official Report, 10 January 1985; Vol. 70, c. 901.]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Soviet Union has by far the largest and most modern stocks of chemical warfare weapons in the world today? I recognise the great pressures that that imposes on the United States and other Western allies, including ourselves, but does my right hon. Friend agree that an effective and verifiable agreement banning such weapons and ensuring their destruction in the Soviet Union and elsewhere would be infinitely preferable to our goring down that route?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be infinitely preferable to have a comprehensive arms control agreement, which we have been seeking. If the Soviet Union were to respond positively to the verification proposals which we have put forward, agreement should be within our grasp.

Will the Minister tell us more about discussions regarding American binary weapons in NATO? Is it not a fact that NATO military bureaucracy has accepted that binary weapons should be located in Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the Government will not agree to that or to any establishment or location of any American binary weapons on British soil?

I cannot add to what I said about the consideration in NATO circles of the force goal proposals that have been put forward by the United States. The United States Government have said that they have no plans to deploy binary chemical weapons in any foreign country in peacetime and that, should such deployment be considered, the United States would consult the countries concerned beforehand.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total number of jobs in the United Kingdom which are dependent on, or otherwise related to, Her Majesty's Government's nuclear defence policy.

Excluding service men and headquarters civilian staff, some 11,000 people are employed by the Ministry of Defence in general nuclear weapons-related activities. In addition, over the period of its procurement, the Trident project will account for an average of 8,500 direct and 6,500 indirect jobs in the United Kingdom. Further employment results from extramural work in support of the general defence nuclear programme.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Do the facts not reveal that, should Britain ever decide to pursue one-sided nuclear disarmament, peace in Europe would be put in jeopardy and thousands of people would be thrown out of work? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever criteria are used, the Labour party's defence policy—if it can be called a defence policy—would have disastrous results if implemented?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The purpose of the Trident programme is to secure the United Kingdom's defence posture. We cannot ignore the fact that it provides a great many jobs, which the Opposition have made special efforts to obscure in case their policy of cancelling the project should ever come about.

Is not the belated anxiety of Conservative Members about employment transparently hypocritical? Is it not a fact that defence jobs are just as vulnerable to redundancy as any others? Indeed, some of us believe that they are more vulnerable.

The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that a lot of jobs are involved in the Trident programme. He might have noticed, as I did, that when the Leader of the Opposition visited Devonport, his publicity mentioned that the Trident programme would be cancelled under Labour, but, when he visited Rosyth, he ostentatiously omitted that sentence to mislead people there.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people are employed as a result of Britain's nuclear programme and that, even more important, many others are protected by and owe their security to it? Does he also agree that the Würzburg NATO nuclear planning group—our European ministerial NATO allies—expressed support for Britain's nuclear programme and welcomed the enhancement of our overall deterrent credibility which it afforded?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the British contribution to the deterrent force has been a major factor in preserving peace in Europe for the past 40 years. My hon. Friend is also right that, at the Würzburg NPG meeting, our allies received a presentation from us on the British nuclear deterrent and expressed their warm approval of it.

What were the terms of the apology proffered by Mr. Caspar Weinberger about the visit to British firms—unauthorised, it seems—by Mr. Clarence Robinson?

The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter in earlier defence questions and, as promised, I have made inquiries about it. I discovered that Mr. Clarence Robinson's visit here had no significance, other than that it was a visit. It certainly had none of the significance that the hon. Gentleman fears.

How many of the defence jobs that my right hon. Friend mentioned are in Scotland. How much money goes into the Scottish economy as a result of them?

I shall be glad to answer a question on that point if my hon. Friend cares to table one. There is no doubt that the base at Faslane on the Clyde and a large portion of the dockyards at Rosyth would be decimated if the Trident programme were to be abandoned.

How many jobs have been lost in conventional support as a result of the Government's commitment to a nuclear policy? How many jobs are being sacrificed on the Tyne and the Clyde because of the Government's inability to make up their mind about where the AOR and type 23 orders should go?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is none. He ought to know, and I think he does know, that the Government have substantially increased conventional spending as well as coping with the Trident programme.

Will the Minister confirm that in my own county of Gwynedd, at RAF Valley, people are employed on nuclear weapons? In view of the resolution by the county council not to have nuclear weapons in Gwynedd, will the Minister remove them?

The hon. Gentleman and the county council will have to face the fact that, whatever their responsibilities, they do not include responsibility for defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future defence procurement policy.

We shall continue to seek to procure the equipment the services need at a price that gives the taxpayer value for money. To this end we shall pursue vigorously the twin aims of competition and collaboration.

Does my hon. Friend not consider that small arms procurement policy is inequitable and one-sided, given that our market is open to overseas competition while overseas markets remain firmly closed to us? Bearing in mind the recent redundancies at Radway Green in my constituency, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that all future orders will be placed in Britain and not abroad, because of the obvious absence of a free market?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance she seeks. She knows that it has always been our policy that to a certain extent we should open up to competition the market for ammunition. Last year we put only 10 per cent. of orders out to competition and we intend to increase that slightly. Following the order for 17 million rounds of 7·6 mm ammunition placed at Radway Green, and the overhang from last year, I am satisfied that the factory has a firm and good production order book.

What specific steps has the Minister taken to enable defence procurement policy to take advantage of the United States 1986 Defence Authorisation Act, which establishes the groundwork for greater co-operation and collaboration between allies?

We are considering a number of projects for joint collaboration. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Nunn amendment requires us, in consultation with our European allies, to develop a list of projects that can be developed on a collaborative basis, not just in Europe, but across the Atlantic.

What steps is my hon. Friend taking to transfer to civil research the large amount of money he spends on military research under the defence procurement policy?

Our research in military establishments is carried out for military purposes and military reasons. We are doing everything possible to encourage spin-offs. My hon. Friend will be aware that we helped to set up a company called Defence Technology Enterprises, which enables private firms to have access to some of the research work carried out in our military establishments. That is a modest step, but it is a step in the right direction.

Can the Minister give us an assurance about future procurement for the type 23? When is the order for 02 to be firmed up and the orders for 03 and 04 confirmed? Can he give us an assurance that Yarrow will be sustained as the lead yard for the type 23?

The 02, 03 and 04 are being evaluated, but no decision has been made on the size or timing of the order. I am sure that Yarrow will remain as it is.

Is it not a fact that the Belgian, German and French Governments will not allow Royal Ordnance to tender for equipment in those countries, whereas we, under our policy of competitive tendering, allow them to tender for equipment for use by our armed forces?

My hon. Friend knows that Royal Ordnance is successful in penetrating foreign markets. We need to get better value for money in the defence budget. If the price of our ammunition is 50 to 60 per cent. higher than it is elsewhere, to take the modest step of looking only at 10 per cent. of our requirements on a competitive basis is a matter of common sense. Anybody who feels that his budget is constrained is bound to do that.

Among the procurement decisions that the Minister is currently considering is an order for 15 Westland Sea King helicopters, which are much needed by our defence forces. Will he give an undertaking to the House that that decision will not be delayed? If it is, it will create further problems for Westland and may risk interrupting the Sea King production line, which would cause the taxpayer to have to pay more in the long run, for those aircraft.

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, he knows that it has been made clear to the House on several occasions that there can be no guarantee of those orders. I cannot add to what has already been said.

When the Minister considers his future defence procurements, will he consider restoring from Germany to the Royal Ordnance Factory, Birtley the FH70 orders, since the Germans have been unable to supply them for over a year?

The implication in the hon. Genleman's question is not quite right. He knows that the ammunition for the FH70 is governed by the terms of the memorandum of understanding. It is a shared project. In this instance the product has to come from the German factory.

Will my hon. Friend now do the House the courtesy of answering the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)? My hon. Friend asked whether the Ministry of Defence would seek to place orders with countries whose markets are not open to us. Will he please answer that question? It is vital that this country should engage in free trade, but it should do so only with those countries which are prepared to open their markets to our royal ordnance factories.

I thought that I began my answer to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Witnerton) by saying that I could not give her an undertaking. When my hon. Friend next sees the hon. Member for Congleton, perhaps he will ask her to confirm that that is what I said. I emphasised that our policy is to get the best value for money, and this modest opening up of the ammunitions market to foreign competition is one that we should continue to pursue.

Has the Director of Public Prosecutions reported on whether he intends to bring an action against Dowty Rotol of Cheltenham for cheating on defence contracts?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the experimental aircraft projects.

The design and construction of this aircraft are well advanced and on schedule. My right hon. Friend will tomorrow take great pleasure in attending the roll-out at Warton.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating British Aerospace and its Italian and German partners on producing on time this high technology demonstrator that is to be rolled out tomorrow? Will he assure the House that the benefits to be derived from this high technology demonstrator will be fully incorporated in the European fighter aircraft programme?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating British Aerospace and its partners. The intention is to use the experience and the technology that has been developed in this aircraft for further use in the European fighter project. I am sure that the valuable experience that has been gained will be used.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Air Force has a particular requirement for the European fighter aircraft, that this experimental aircraft has been designed around the needs of the Royal Air Force and that this must be remembered fully when we order the European Fighter aircraft?

I note what my hon. Friend says, but it is important to emphasise that the idea behind the European fighter project is to produce an aircraft that suits the needs of several air forces, not just to build it around the requirements of one nation. It is important to stick to the requirements on weight and size that are essential if the project is to go ahead on a collaborative basis.

Is the Minister of State aware that we on the Labour Benches join in congratulating British Aerospace on this achievement and look forward to seeing the roll-out of the aircraft tomorrow? Is he aware of the disturbing statements that were made on television over the weekend about the possibility of secrets being leaked to the Czechoslovakian Government by a junior official at the DTI? Is the Ministry of Defence satisfied that highly sensitive military information concerning aircraft of this nature is now properly safeguarded at the DTI, and is no longer able to be purloined by junior officials?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I cannot comment on that situation at this moment. That matter, I understand, is being investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now publish the memorandum of understanding on the strategic defence initiative following the German Government's decision to do so.

No. The United States-United Kingdom memorandum of understanding on United Kingdom participation in the United States research programme is classified. I understand that the corresponding agreement between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, signed on 27 March 1986, is confidential and will not be published.

Irrespective of the actions of the Federal Republic of Germany, why does the Minister insist on secrecy for this memorandum of understanding? Surely Parliament has a right to know—or is it all to do with the Prime Minister's docile, weak-kneed, agree-at-any-price relationship with the President of the United States of America, as demonstrated in the last 24 hours?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the memorandum of understanding is an agreement between our Government and the Government of the United States. The latter Government are also negotiating agreements with several other Governments, and in the circumstances it would be utterly astonishing if they wanted to have that agreement made available publicly.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have received a copy of this document from the United States, which bears no classification sign of any kind. Therefore, I should like confirmation from him of the degree of classification that it is being given in the United States. Secondly, will he please reconsider publication, because this document contains commitments and constraints on British industry which have been made known to British industrialists and I think ought to be made known to Parliament?

I had noticed the report in a newspaper that my hon. Friend had received the document. Whether he has received the memorandum of understanding or a different document on procurement co-operation, I do not know. If he has received this document, all I can say is that I note that he is in possession of a classified document.

Does the memorandum include a statement on the vulnerability of Europe and the destabilisation of deterrence as a result of the SDI along the lines of his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's initial comments? Will he publish at least those aspects?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman, without giving anything away, that it does not cover that matter because, of course, the memorandum of understanding is concerned with matters such as transfer of technology, intellectual property rights, commercial matters and the basis on which companies and institutions in this country would do deals with United States institutions on the SDI project.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he can forecast the future purchases of Land Rover by his Department.

We expect to order 2,600 of the new 90 model in the very near future. These orders will meet our requirements up to 1988–89. In addition, the company is currently competing for the services' requirement for a 1-tonne utility truck replacement, the order for which will be placed in the early part of 1987.

While I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him whether, when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry moves closer to a decision on the future of Land Rover, he will guide him if there are any security issues to be taken into account, and will he look in detail at the ownership of the various bids?

All I can say to my hon. Friend is that the defence interests will be conveyed, and have been, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is intended that during their participation in the RIMPAC exercise British naval forces will take part in ground attacks against the Kaho' Olawe United States bombing range in Hawaii.

No, Sir.

Not withstanding that answer, in view of the fact that we volunteered to participate in this exercise when New Zealand pulled out, and in view of recent events, how can the Minister convince us that in defence matters we are nothing more than a satellite state of the United States of America?

It says a lot for the commitment of the Labour party to NATO that it is reluctant for us to exercise with our most important military partner in NATO.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this is not a NATO exercise, but an exercise outside the NATO area? We are concerned about our obligations to NATO, but we do not want to enable the Americans to project power all over the world.

We are very happy to exercise with the United States both in area and out of area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to receive and publish the Calcutt report.

My right hon. Friend received Mr. Calcutt's report on 9 April. He intends to publish it as soon as it has been cleared by the security authorities and he has completed his initial consideration of it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, by giving permission for the launching of F-111s to undertake a military attack on the mainland of Libya, she has not only broken the confidence of the EEC and international law, but now has the blood of innocents on her hands? Does she realise that that action and the build-up of American naval power are a threat to world peace and that she should divorce herself from Reagan's Rambo policies in that area? This is not the answer to international terrorism, which we all abhor. These are the questions that nations are asking.

I believe that the attacks made by the United States on Libya were within the inherent right of self-defence under article 51. That was why we gave our support to that action and our consent to the use of bases in Britain for that purpose.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in East Anglia this afternoon about the use to which United States air force bases have been put during the last 24 hours? Further, is she aware that this understandable anxiety could be allayed if it is proved beyond doubt that the United States raids were not contrary to article 51 and were strictly necessary to meet the Libyan terrorist threat?

As I indicated, I believe that the United States action against terrorist-related targets, undertaken in the light of evidence that further terrorist attacks were planned, was within the inherent right of self-defence under article 51.

I realise that there is to be a statement later today and a debate on Libya and the attack on Libya tomorrow, but the House and the country will want to know as quickly as possible what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to safeguard the welfare of British citizens in Libya and other countries in the middle east.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, since we broke off diplomatic relations with Libya following the St. James's square terrorist incident some two years ago we have had consistently to tell our own people who remain in Libya that they do so on their own responsibility. The only representation that we have is someone in the British interests section of the Italian embassy. Of course, we are in touch with him and he will advise British citizens as best he can.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied that, acknowledging the background to our relationship with Libya, enough can and will be done not only in Libya but elsewhere where people may be extremely vulnerable in the next period to provide proper safeguards to ensure their security?

Under terrorist attack there is no universal safeguard, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. All posts have been alerted and security stepped up.

While recognising the frustration felt by the United States when dealing with the Libyan Government, will not the effect of this American attack on Tripoli be to strengthen President Gaddafi, and to weaken our moderate friends in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf?

No, I do not believe that it will have that effect. There has been state-sponsored terrorism by Libya for a long time. How much longer were we to remain passive and not exercise the right of self-defence inherent in the charter?

Will the Prime Minister be explicit with the House? Is she standing at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government condoning and supporting the death of civilians in Libya, who were killed by aircraft flying with her consent from British bases, when the House of Commons has neither been informed or consulted, nor given any approval to this act?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that action by the United States took place against continued state-sponsored terrorism by Libya. I believe that we were entitled to use, that the United States was entitled to use, its inherent right of self-defence. If one refuses to take any risks because of the consequences, the terrorist Governments will win and one can only cringe before them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that until some real progress is made in securing self-determination for the Palestinian people—a cause to which I believe she is committed—no amount of bombing is likely to stop friendly Arab Governments from planning violent actions throughout the world?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we take as much action as we can to further the peace process between the Arab and Palestinian peoples in the middle east. We shall continue to do so. We have taken peaceful action against terrorism. Much of that action has, unfortunately, not secured its objective. The United States decided to exercise, in the light of a specific target, its right of self-defence. To have refused to have done so would have meant that we were supine and passive in the face of that terrorism.

Regarding the discussions that the right hon. Lady had with the American President in the past few days, can she say what discussion there was about the acceptable level of civilian destruction and murder that might follow an attack upon Libya? Did she try to restrain the actions of the President on that account? Does she understand that the worst way to deal with terrorism is to act like terrorists ourselves?

The discussion was to secure targets and action proportionate to the threat, and to ensure that the action taken by the United States was within article 51. The United States and we believe that that action was within article 51. Could I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the leader that appeared in The Mirror yesterday—as robust a leader as I have ever seen?

Two weeks ago there was a skirmish between the United States and Libya. Yesterday there was a major attack by the United States on Libya. What convinces my right hon. Friend that this escalation in events will not continue?

There has been an escalation in terrorism for some time. We have all been subjected to it in this country, as well as elsewhere. The question was, at what time did one attempt, or the United States attempt, to invoke the right of self-defence, or were we to continue being passive and supine? I believe that, under the circumstances, the United States was acting within article 51 in exercising its inherent right of self-defence to try to turn the tide against terrorism, and to discourage those who engage in it and state-sponsored terrorism, from engaging in further attacks.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, under the Churchill-Truman agreement of 1952, the decision whether to use the bases was a matter for joint decision? Does that not lay an obligation on the Government to prove that article 51 has been fully used and to produce evidence to the Security Council?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Security Council has condemned terrorism. He is also aware that that condemnation has been without effect. It did not seem that further condemnation by the Security Council would have any effect this time. The right hon. Gentleman is right. The arrangements under which American bases are used in this country have been the same for well over 30 years and they have not changed. Under those arrangements, our agreement was required. It was sought and, after discussion and question, it was obtained on the basis that the action would be on targets that were within article 51.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will take points of order after questions.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

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

Although I welcome the Government's £3·6 million urban grant to regenerate industry in Bolton, will my right hon. Friend condemn Bolton's labour-controlled council, which is discouraging business with a 23 per cent. rate increase?

I understand that Bolton council has increased its expenditure by almost 13 per cent., which is about three or four times above the expected rate of inflation. I agree with my hon. Friend also that high rate increases drive away businesses, especially small businesses, and therefore jobs. I agree with my hon. Friend also that ratepayers have a right to expect good value for money. Therefore, there is some concern about the fact that Bolton has suspended its efficiency study.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

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

Did the right hon. lady consult our EEC partners, some of which are fellow members of NATO, about the attack on Tripoli and Benghazi? if she did not, why not? If she did, why did she choose to disregard their views?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met some of our EEC partners yesterday. We did not consult them on the use of our bases. That is a matter for our decision.

When my right hon. Friend took the difficult but wholly correct decision to permit the use of British bases for the United States attack, was she influenced not only by loyalty to an ally with a just cause, but by a much more practical consideration, namely, that fewer risks were likely to be caused to Libyan civilians and to United States military personnel if the United States used the much more precise equipment, the F 111, rather than carrier-based aircraft?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is correct. That was a factor in the decision to use our bases and why those aircraft were especialy right for the action that was undertaken. We were also influenced by the fact that the United States has hundreds of thousands of forces in Europe to defend the liberty of Europe. In that capacity they have been subject to terrorist attack. It was inconceivable to me that we should refuse United States aircraft and pilots the opportunity to defend their people.

Why did the Prime Minister choose to authorise the use of British bases for this attack when the capability to mount that attack existed with the battle fleet not 300 miles north of the coast of Libya?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) indicated in an earlier question, the F 111s were required because they are more accurate on particular targets and because they would involve far less collateral damage and far less risk to American pilots. The Americans are our allies and put considerable effort into defending the freedom of Europe. I hope that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches will remember that.

Am I right in assuming that there is a very strong link between the Libyan Government and the IRA, which results in the death of many innocent people in this country?

Yes, we have evidence that the Libyan Government support the Provisional IRA. That is also a factor which must be taken into account.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 April.

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

Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, when the Foreign Secretary was trying to persuade our European partners to take firm diplomatic action, he was aware that she had already authorised the use of this country as a glorified aircraft carrier for the United States, and is this what she means by co-operation with our European partners?

The Foreign Secretary and I have acted very closely together throughout. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the United States has more than 330,000 members of her forces in Europe to defend our liberty.