asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish a statement on the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons from United States bases in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now publish a statement on the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons by the United States from United Kingdom bases.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 7 May:

"Under the Churchill-Truman arrangements, there are no circumstances in which American aircraft based in this country may be used without our consent in military operations planned by the United States."—[Official Report, 7 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 132.]

Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his answer, the confidence of British people in consultations between ourselves and Washington has been severely shattered by the way in which our bases were used for the attack on Libya? Does he agree that the very least for which we can ask is more consultation in future, and, better still, no use of NATO bases for non-NATO purposes?

That is a somewhat surprising question, because, while there is plenty of room for controversy about all aspects of this matter, the one thing that is perfectly clear is that the consultation procedure is satisfactory and has worked extremely well.

In view of the Secretary of State's answer and the Government's total subservience to the United States Government, will he tell us to what extent the arrangements involve the use of Britain as a strategic base for the Americans in the event of another attack in which the Americans are the principal belligerents?

The answer has been made clear many times. If there were to be any further request from the United States for any further such action, it would be an entirely new request and would have to be considered afresh by my right hon. Friend and myself.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore the remarks of Opposition Members and confirm that the arrangements were found perfectly satisfactory by preceding Governments—not only Conservative, but Labour?

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, the original agreement was negotiated with the Americans by a Labour Government under Mr. Attlee.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the use of bases, such as Upper Heyford, will always be a decision for both Governments and that nothing has changed? Will he further confirm that that has been the position in the past and will be the position in future? Is that not the safeguard that has protected us for many years past and will do so for many years to come?

I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. The arrangements have been perfectly satisfactory, and we have no intention of changing them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the same arrangements apply for missiles fired from United States submarines sailing out of United Kingdom bases?

Yes, the same arrangements apply to all bases.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is more than a certain offensiveness about the suggestion that American forces—which, as a nation, by heart and resolve, are valiant allies—are somehow or other the enemies of our freedom? Without the Americans, what freedom would we have in the Western world?

My hon. Friend is correct in what he says. It is quite clear that the defence of this country depends entirly upon defending it in conjunction with our allies, and our principal ally in the NATO Alliance is the United States. It is our closest ally by a long way.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons are no different from those for the use of chemical weapons? As the Government seem to be determined next week, or the week after, to allow binary chemical bombs to be established at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath, will he confirm that the rules regarding the use of those bombs will be no different from those regarding the bombs used to attack Libya?

I do not think that that arises, because there are no chemical weapons stored in the United Kingdom and we have no intention of agreeing to chemical weapons being stored here by the United States. Obviously, if it were to ask us to do so, the matter would have to be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the progress of strategic defence initiative research.

Progress of SDI research as a whole is a matter for the United States Government.

In view of the leaking of the memorandum of understanding on SDI between the West German Government and the United States Government, will the Secretary of State now publish the agreement between the British and American Governments before it is also leaked?

The details of the memorandum of understanding between the British and United States Governments contain confidential matters which it would not be appropriate to publish. However, I have by arrangement, on a classified basis, supplied the details of the memorandum to the Defence Select Committee, which I hope it will find helpful.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a little concern about his initial answer? As I understand it, my right hon. Friend's predecessor and Mr. Weinberger took a particular and detailed interest in the agreement to ensure effective implementation. In the light of agreements between the Federal Republic of Germany and Israel, does my right hon. Friend feel that it is a matter of urgency that some progress can be demonstrated to those who follow these matters?

It is certainly desirable that progress can be demonstrated in our participation in the SDI research programme. All memorandums of understanding are not necessarily the same. For classified reasons, it would not be appropriate to publish ours.

Will the Secretary of State say whether the classification is based on commercial or defence reasons, or both? If it is only for defence reasons, when will we know the commercial background to these matters, and who will control the outcome of the research—us or the Pentagon?

There are both commercial and defence reasons for the confidentiality, so it would not be proper to publish the memorandum of understanding. However, I hope that the House will find it an acceptable compromise for the Defence Select Committee to see the memorandum on a classified basis.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Soviet Union has been exploring this area for many years, that if we had not taken part in the initiative nothing would have stopped the United States from creaming off some of our brightest and best academics to participate, and that, through our participation, we may be able to influence the important decision whether this important initiative is implemented in due course?

I agree with my hon. Friend. If we had decided not to take any part in this purely research programme it would have continued regardless, without any participation by British companies. Indeed, there would have been considerable danger that skilled British technicians would have had to emigrate to America to participate, and that would not have been in our interests in any respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what need there is for nuclear testing by or on behalf of the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom requires to carry out nuclear tests in order to maintain the effectiveness of its nuclear defence capabilities.

Given the evidence from the Chernobyl disaster and the effects of radiation, even at low radiation yields equivalent to a 1 kilotonne bomb, can the Secretary of State tell us whether Britain's interests would be better served by guaranteeing that our missiles are sent on a day when the wind is in the right direction, or by moving towards a verifiable test ban treaty, which we now know is possible?

The Government's policy is to work in every way possible for a comprehensive test ban treaty. The principal obstacle to a treaty being concluded now is the absence of any effective verification procedures. I do not think that there is any connection with the Chernobyl disaster other than that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that nuclear warheads come in a wide range of sizes, with the ability to cause equally wide-ranging devastation, and that they can also be fitted to a variety of different delivery systems? Does he further agree that, to bring together the right warheads with the right delivery systems to meet the changing needs of our defence requirements, it is essential that continuing testing goes on while the opposite side are doing the same?

We all wish that a way can be found, as soon as possible, of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether, but, while they are there, testing is essential for safety and operational reasons. The Government's policy is to do everything possible to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty as soon as verification can be made credible.

Is not the Government's assertion that verification procedures and techniques are not yet available rejected by leading scientists, not only in the Soviet Union and the United States, but here? Does not his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) make it clear that, far from wanting a comprehensive test ban treaty, the Government simply pay lip-service to that objective, while their real objective is to continue nuclear testing to develop new nuclear weapons?

I do not accept any of that. One can find scientists in this country who will say that verification can be achieved, and others who say the opposite. The advice that is given to me is that verification is very far from being 100 per cent. effective, or even acceptable in its present state. We must do all that we can to encourage the Soviet Union to agree further measures on verification, so that we can make progress.

Is it not the case that while Polaris and Trident are American delivery vessels, the warheads are British and, if they are to work, they must be tested?

My hon. Friend is right. While these weapons exist and we have them, for all these reasons we must test them from time to time. However, none of that is against our ultimate aim of having a comprehensive test ban treaty.

Is not the Secretary of State's last answer the key to it—that verification is put up only as a thin excuse, which is not even accepted in many parts of the United States Government, for not progressing towards a comprehensive test ban treaty? Is not the development of the Trident warhead stopping Britain from taking advantage of its unique position to take initiatives in seeking a comprehensive test ban treaty?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks a little further about this matter, he will appreciate that a comprehensive test ban treaty, or any test ban treaty, which it was not possible to be absolutely certain that we could verify, would be worth nothing and would be an extremely dangerous measure for us to embark upon.

Further to the question by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), can my right hon. Friend say whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to carry out atmospheric tests with nuclear weapons?

There is no change in our normal policy on nuclear tests, and we do not make advance announcements of when and where they will take place.

The right hon. Gentleman's first answer was the correct one. He made it clear that the Government will not agree to a comprehensive ban treaty because that would deny the effectiveness that the Government require. Why does he not come clean and make it clear that it is nothing to do with verification or safety, but that, to get Trident, the Government must test the warheads?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is clear that a test ban treaty, or a test ban, without credible means of verification is not worth anything, and it would be an extremely dangerous course on which to embark. I hope that, whatever other disagreements we may have on this difficult subject, we can at least agree that if we are to have a test ban, we must have adequate verification first.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to increase the take-up places under the YTS scheme by persons for whom his Department is responsible: and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces outlined steps being taken to encourage armed services YTS recruitment in his answer to questions put by my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 15 April, at columns 712–13.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that 2,700 youngsters have done armed services YTS, and 60 per cent. are staying on for regular service in the armed forces. Nevertheless, only about a quarter of the ASYTS places are being taken up. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend will tell us what he proposes to do to promote YTS in the armed forces to a greater extent, perhaps through a cadet corps, particularly now that, with the introduction of the two-year YTS, greater training facilities will be available in particular qualifications for City and Guilds?

I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. We shall consider his specific suggestions. We continue to promote the scheme actively through visits by service school liaison officers, several thousand such visits are planned this year, and there will be a new range of publicity material. There are some pleasing aspects. Of the participants in armed forces YTS about 60 per cent. have gone on to regular engagements. On the civilian YTS, approximately 70 per cent. have gone on to full apprenticeships with us.

We welcome the fact that there are new entrants in the services in the lower echelons, but what is happening to the attrition rate in the higher echelons? We seem to be losing highly skilled personnel, especially from the Royal Navy. Is that loss related to the lack of ordering of new classes of vessels, especially the types 22 and 23? When will orders be placed to suit the services so that we can keep our highly skilled personnel?

The hon. Gentleman is an extremely skilled parliamentarian. His specific question on frigates comes somewhat lower on the Order Paper. This early question does not really relate to the question on YTS.

Are those who do not convert from these schemes to regular service given information that may lead them to enlist in the Territorial Army?

I am not aware whether they are given specific information about possible engagement in the Territorial Army. I shall certainly look into that specific suggestion.

Would not popularisation of YTS ensure that those who participated in it could, if they wished, join the armed forces afterwards?

I shall certainly take up that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the most up-to-date information available to him about progress by the Soviet Union's research and development programme for space-launched weapons systems.

I refer my hon. Friend to the paper that I have placed in the Library entitled "The Soviet Ballistic Missile Defence Programme". I refer my hon. Friend also to the United States Government's assessment in "Soviet Military Power 1986," a copy of which is also in the Library.

In the light of that reply, does my right hon. Friend not regard it as the height of hypocrisy for the Soviet Union's leadership to condemn the United States strategic defence initiative research programme as destabilising? If we are to have verifiable, balanced, multilateral disarmament, which we all want, is it not incumbent on the Soviet Union to come clean and be open and honest about its own star wars programme?

I certainly agree that there is no basis on which the Soviet Union can criticise the United States for an extensive research programme on ballistic missile defence, because the Soviet Union has been engaged on such a programme since the 1960s. The Soviet Union possesses and is upgrading around Moscow the world's only system of active anti-ballistic missile defences, which employs nuclear-tipped missiles capable of destroying targets beyond the atmosphere. It has an operational anti-satellite system, and it is conducting substantial programmes on advanced technologies relevant to ballistic missile defence, including high-powered lasers, kinetic energy and particle beam weapons and heavy-lift space launchers. In fact, since 1976 the Soviet Union has conducted more than twice as many launches as the rest of the world put together, 80 per cent. of them military in nature.

Taking account of the Soviet Union's space and science budget, most of which is devoted to military purposes, such as research and development into strategic defence systems, is not the overall military capability of the Soviet Union much greater than one would estimate, judging by those defence expenditure figures which are made public?

The Soviet Union certainly has an enormous research and development programme. Over a long period it has carried out a major research programme into the possibility of a strategic defence system.

If we know as much as that about the Soviet Union's space research programme, is it not surprising that we claim we cannot verify whether the Soviet Union is testing nuclear bombs?

I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that scientifically that is a quite different proposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the question of Mr. Jim Smith and Aish and Company of Poole in the past month.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) recently raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I have written to the hon. Member.

Is the Minister aware that I have spent the past 12 months investigating the affair of Mr. Jim Smith and Aish and Company? The conclusion that I draw is that officials at the Ministry of Defence have deliberately misled Ministers as to the effectiveness of post costing arrangements within the Ministry of Defence? They know that it was Mr. Smith who found the excess profits being charged by Aish and Company. When the report of the Public Accounts Committee is produced in two weeks, will the Minister take it home and read it in detail, follow its recommendations, and make a statement to the House?

I have not spent the past year researching this subject, as has the hon. Gentleman, but it sometimes feels as though I have spent the last year preparing for the hon. Gentleman's questions on this matter. I take seriously what he says. However, I fail to follow what motive he thinks Ministry of Defence officials would have in denying things which he believes to be true. I cannot understand that motive. Of course I shall look at the Public Accounts Committee's report, and I shall be interested to see whether there is any evidence to cause us to change our conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the allocated number of cruise missiles to be placed in the United Kingdom has now been completed.

Information on the deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom is provided in the "Annual Statement on the Defence Estimates." I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 320 of the 1986 Estimates, which were published yesterday, which indicates that the deployment of 96 cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common has been completed. Deployment of the remaining 64 missiles at RAF Molesworth is not due to be completed until 1988.

Does the Minister realise the depth of worry in this country about cruise missiles? Is he aware that the vast majority of the British people are against them, especially in the atmosphere of worry about nuclear issues generally? Is it not a fact that a wave of horror went through this country when the Prime Minister took a personal decision about the bombing of Libya, without consulting even the Foreign Minister or the Cabinet, and that a deep worry about cruise missiles now pervades this country?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the recent events in Libya had nothing to do with INF missiles. I think that more people in this country are worried about the scale of the continued programme of deployment of long-range INF missiles by the Soviet Union. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when NATO initially took its twin-track decision on the deployment of INF missiles, the Soviet Union had 693 long-range INF warheads facing west—Europe—and it has already increased that number to 922, which are now deployed. I believe that the scale of that programme is the biggest single concern among the British people.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Cambridgeshire, far from being worried about Government policy on the location of cruise missiles there, at last Thursday's local elections the Conservatives won four seats from the Liberals and two from Labour?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the results that he achieved in his constituency, which all Conservative Members will be seeking to emulate next May.

Is the Minister aware that one of the more pleasing features about recent events in relation to cruise missiles has been that members of cruise watch have been able to harry the movements of those cruise missiles to a greater extent than ever before? Of course, we would like them to be even more successful. Will the hon. Gentleman condemn the tactics used by those who are driving the missile carriers in thier attempts to frustrate the peaceful efforts of those who are standing up for the majority in Britain, especially after the Libyan bombing?

I note the hon. Gentleman's support for the protesters on the public highway, but I am afraid that I have to disappoint him. The programme of exercises for ground-launched cruise missiles is continuing very well and is not being disrupted by the protesters.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Soviet Government and Warsaw Pact powers made an immense propaganda effort to prevent those missiles being based in the West? The programme has gone forward, and all of us in the West feel much happier for that reason.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that it is not a coincidence that the fact that the NATO countries have gone ahead with their deployment option on INF missiles has, for the first time, brought the Soviet Union back to the INF negotiating table. I hope that it will provide a means of bringing about a fair and equitable arms control agreement in relation to those nuclear missiles.

Will the Minister confirm that at the time of the United States raid on Libya, cruise missiles were placed on amber alert? Were the Government consulted before that took place?

There was no change at all in nuclear alert states at that time.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-nuclear lobby asserted that the deployment of cruise in the United Kingdom and Europe would wreck any chance of arms reduction talks? Does he agree that the opposite has happened? Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government's continuing commitment to a mutual, balanced, and verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I shall most certainly restate that commitment to an equitable, verifiable arms control agreement in INF and elsewhere. The pattern of the INF negotiations has once again brought out the old adage that the Soviet Union is prepared to negotiate on arms control provided that we are negotiating from a position of some strength.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has undertaken any research into the accuracy of laser-guided weapons.

Yes, Sir.

If the Government have undertaken research into the accuracy of weapons that will be deployed if the SDI ever comes to fruition, can the Minister give any guarantees that the United States will not simply use this country for the technology that is available here and then use that technology without paying the proper price for it? What guarantees can the Minister give the House that that will not happen?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be jumping from laser-guided weapons to the SDI agreement. We have made it clear to the House on many occasions that the memorandum of understanding that we have signed with the United States Government protects our own intellectual property rights and safeguards our freedom to exploit the fruits of British research in British companies. We are wholly satisfied on the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Air Force stations are currently used as bases by the United States air force.

The USAF's main operating bases in the United Kingdom are at the following seven RAF stations: Alconbury, Bentwaters, Fairford, Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Upper Heyford and Woodbridge. The USAF makes use of other RAF bases and facilities elsewhere.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those United States bases make a substantial contribution to the defence of this country, and that the removal of those bases, as advocated by the Labour party, and the replacement of that cover by the Royal Air Force, would place an intolerable burden on the defence budget?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the United States presence in this country, including the USAF presence, is an integral part of Western Europe's deterrent, which is faced by the Soviet Union. I also agree that the Labour party's commitment to make the Americans remove their bases from this country is one of the most damaging attacks on NATO, and one of the most damaging defence policies that has ever been adopted by any British political party.

Does the Minister not accept that there is increasing concern among the public living around all the RAF bases used by the USAF, and also in areas over which Fl 1 1s and other United States aircraft fly in their training role? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time for a review of low-level flying throughout the United Kingdom? Did he read the remarks of Henry Kissinger in the press recently, where he argued for a withdrawal of F1lls to the USA?

With regard to the final part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it remains our view, and it remains the view of the United States Administration, that the forward American deployment in western Europe is integral to the defence of western Europe. Low flying is a separate issue. It is subject to special rules that we have laid down. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular complaints in relation to his own constituency, we shall of course look at them.

Is it not clear that the presence of United States' bases in Britain, and specifically the nuclear element, has played a key role in maintaining the peace and freedom of western Europe over the past 35 years? Is there not a real possibility that in the event of the implementation of either a Liberal or Socialist defence policy of getting rid of American cruise missiles and nuclear weapons from British soil, that could lead to the withdrawal of all US bases from this country, which would precipitate the disintegration of the NATO Alliance?

I agree with my hon. Friend that if the official Opposition were able to implement the policies to which they are committed there would be profound reverberations throughout NATO and profound damage to NATO. The striking contrast between the defence position in Europe now compared with 50 years ago is that 30 years ago the Americans had withdrawn to the other side of the Atlantic. Today, the forward defence position of the United States is seen to be inside western Europe, and that is why we can look forward with much greater confidence to continuing peace than our predecessors did in the 1930s.

If NATO, in a few weeks' time, agree, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Defence, to establish binary chemical bombs in Britain, at which of the bases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred will they be located?

The right hon. Gentleman was in the House when we dealt with a private notice question on that matter a few days ago. We made it clear then that we are considering the adoption or otherwise of a NATO force goal. I made it clear in answer to questions then that there were no plans by the United States to make any deployment of chemical weapons outside the United States in peace time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as the important strategic defence presence of American bases in this country, there is an important economic factor in that presence for East Anglia and other areas? Does my right hon. Friend accept that if American bases were thrown out of this country there would be a serious economic loss? Jobs would be lost in East Anglia, in my constituency, as a result of any implemention of the Labour party's initiative on this issue.

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that United States' forces in the United Kingdom are estimated to spend more than £600 million a year on goods and services, and that they sustain, directly or indirectly, some 30,000 jobs. I am sure that that fact will not be lost on the electorate of East Anglia or on the voters in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that his constituents will give him the same support at the next general election as they gave at the last one.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions during the past 20 years bases of armed forces in the United Kingdom have been put on red alert other than for non-emergency practice purposes.

As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on 12 April 1984, there has been no warning of an imminent attack on the United Kingdom since 1945, nor have British or allied forces in this country been deployed to react to one.

Can the Minister confirm that American forces based in the United Kingdom may be put on red or amber alert without prior notification or consultation with the United Kingdom Government?

It has been made clear, not least by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that if there is any question of a change in the nuclear alert state of United States' forces, the British Government would be informed.

Is my right hon. Friend not sick and tired of the perpetual attacks on the United States of America by the Opposition? Does he agree that the people of this country, who are responsible and concerned about defence and security, are grateful for the tremendous contribution that the United States makes to the defence of the Western world? Will my right hon. Friend tell us what it would cost the United Kingdom and western Europe to fill the gap that would be left if the United States' forces returned to North America?

The cost would be absolutely enormous. I entirely endorse all the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. The great majority of the British people are heartily sick of the non-stop anti-Americanism displayed by the Labour party.

In answer to a previous question the right hon. Gentleman said that chemical weapons would not be located in Britain—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must related his question to the present question and not to a previous one.

We are concerned to know where those chemical weapons would be deployed in Britain.

Order. The same rules must apply to everyone. This is a question on red alerts.

Would it be on a red alert or would it be in a time of tension, as the United States Senate has said?

That is a totally academic point, because the issue at the moment is whether NATO adopts the United States force goal. The Americans have made it clear that there will be no deployment in peace time outside the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans any changes in the application of defence resources to the various defence commitments.

I will be taking decisions in the usual way on the use of defence resources, but I see no need for fundamental changes in our main defence commitments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as defence costs rise, there will inevitably in due course be a need to review commitments? If commitments are to be reviewed, does he agree that that which is least consistent with fair burden-sharing among the NATO allies is the maintenance of 55,000 troops and a tactical air force in Germany?

If there were in the future a need to reconsider any of our main defence commitments, they would have to be the subject of careful consultation with NATO before they were carried out, but there is no such need at present.

Does the Secretary of State intend to announce the replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and make a statement about—

Order. There is another question about that next.

I have already made it clear that I expect to consider those matters later on this summer.

My right hon. Friend may know that I visited Swan Hunter's yard on Tyneside on Friday. Is he aware just how short of orders that fine yard is and how worrying it is to the workers there that they are still awaiting the O2 order of the type 23 frigate?

I am well aware of that position. As my hon. Friend knows, we are evaluating the bid that Swan Hunter has made for the type 23 frigate, No. O2.

In view of yesterday's defence statement, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the commitment by his Government to provide a modern surface fleet of approximately 50 destroyers and frigates by the mid-1990s will be fulfilled?

I made it reasonably clear yesterday that while there will be some difficult decisions in the usual review of costings in the defence budget, I expect the general size of the Royal Navy to remain broadly as it is at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the amphibious ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which has just been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Does the Minister realise that the life of those important capital ships is fast coming to a close? [Interruption.] Unless a decision is taken soon on this matter, Britain's capacity to fulfil her NATO tasks on the flanks of NATO will be severely impaired. If he will not announce a decision now, will he at least announce when he will announce a decision or announce something that will help us in this matter?

The life of those ships is not fast coming to a close, because Intrepid has just been refitted and Fearless will refit next year.

I am sure that the Minister of State has enjoyed, as we have, the keenness of both wings of the alliance to get the headlines on those two ships. It is perhaps the only defence issue on which they are united.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on postponement. We have been saying for a long time that the decisions on the replacement of amphibious shipping will be taken this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just repeated that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to discuss proposals to equip the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with binary chemical weapons.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces explained in answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 7 March, a force goal concerning the modernisation of United States' chemical weapon stocks is being considered collectively within NATO. My NATO colleagues and I will meet to discuss allied defence planning matters at the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee on 22 May.

What would be the Secretary of State's attitude to the force goal, having regard to reports that the United States' current stock of chemical weapons is still serviceable, and having regard to the moral repugnance that those weapons create? Is it not a waste of valuable military resources on something which may not serve the purpose for which it was designed?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that this is a matter for discussion within NATO. For our part, we believe that there is a vast and increasing capability in the Soviet Union. NATO and the United States should consider their response to that capability.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

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

In view of the shattering rejection that the Government's policies received at the polls last Thursday, not least in Lambeth and Finchley, what changes does the Prime Minister intend to make in policies or in Ministers, or does she contemplate leaving the job to someone else?

I thought it was a pretty shattering rejection of Labour policies.

In view of the importance of jobs in Scotland and exports from Britain, how did the discussions go with Korea and Japan on the Scotch whisky industry? Is there any further hope of additional exports to those countries?

The matter was raised with both countries, and I understood from the Japanese Prime Minister that it would be considered. I put our point robustly that they have promised to consider it before that and their promises have not so far come to very much.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that she will not be the most significant lady in the House this afternoon? Will she cease to listen to those of her colleagues, semi-detached or otherwise, who tell her that the Government's policies are not getting through? They are getting through—on unemployment, education and transport—and they are being wholly rejected.

I seem to remember that I had a similar question after the Crosby by-election. That was 18 months before our splendid win at the following general election.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate the Conservatives in my constituency of Batley and Spen who won a Labour seat against all odds?

I congratulate those people on their wisdom in the local election and on their wisdom in choosing my hon. Friend as a Member for Parliament in the general election.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

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

As the Prime Minister's party obtained only 16 per cent. of the vote in Scotland, as it no longer controls one regional council in Scotland, and as the Tory party will be lucky to retain five Conservative seats in Scotland at the next general election, does she really consider that there has been a shattering rejection of Labour party policies, or does she agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said that the result reflected the Government's failure to do their job?

Opposition Members sometimes say that we have no mandate to govern Scotland, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that on that basis four out of the last five Labour Governments had no mandate to govern England.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of the local election in Wandsworth shows that people want a combination of low rates and efficient public services which offers value for money? Will my right hon. Friend continue to pursue policies at a national level that are designed to secure those objectives?

Yes, Sir. As the months go by, many ratepayers will wish that they had followed Wandsworth's example.

To change the subject from electioneering, can the Prime Minister say what her Government's response will be to Christian Aid week, given their appalling record during the past seven years?

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that our record has not been appalling. We led our European colleagues on granting and getting aid given to Ethiopia. We have an excellent record of aid to Ethiopia and other countries in Africa. However, I wish Christian Aid week well, and hope that people will give generously.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

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

As there has been a further fall in the rate of inflation, and as there is now a negligible Budget deficit, cannot we use those Government successes to build a policy of new investment in the public sector to stimulate the economy? Could not that take precedence over all other matters, including tax cuts?

We are certainly heading for the lowest inflation rate since the 1960s. My hon. Friend will be very much aware of the Government's excellent record on building roads, and, in particular, hospitals. It is excellent.

When NHS consultants in London and elsewhere record that Health Service cuts are seriously jeopardising standards of health care and the training of doctors, and are resulting in lengthening waiting lists and a loss of acute services, does the Prime Minister still say that the Health Service is safe in her hands?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, far more resources have been put into the Health Service—from £7·5 billion in the first year that we took over from Labour to £17·5 billion now. There has been a great increase in the number of those practising medicine, doctors and nurses, and a great increase in the number of those treated in the Health Service. I believe that they are treated better as medical services improve. The right hon. Gentleman knows the reason for the changes in London. Resources have been moved further north under policies started by a Labour Government. Does he now reject and renounce those policies?

Surely the Prime Minister must know, since everybody else does, that London's loss has not been anybody else's real gain. When she offers that litany—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister not even begin to understand the difference between statistics and people? Statistics do not feel pain; people do.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Resources have been steadily moved further north for many years at the cost of we London Members—[Interruption.] I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he is against that reallocation policy. I therefore assume that he is asking us to stop it.

Everybody knows that the RAWP policy was acceptable everywhere for as long as the NHS was expanding adequately. When it is being cut, that policy is a betrayal of the people, north, south, east and west.

There were two years under the Labour Government when the money spent on the Health Service was actually reduced. The fact is that expenditure was £7·5 billion in the last year of the Labour Government and £17·5 billion this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman learn a little arithmetic?

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

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

Will the Prime Mininster accept a little reality? On the question of the crisis in acute beds in London and the surrounding areas, is she aware that the protest by the 10 teaching hospitals, led by Mr. Richard Thompson of St. Thomas's, means that in the last fortnight nine of those hospitals have had to refuse the admission of emergency cases? Is she aware that because of the rationalisation of beds outside London the only place to which patients can come are the teaching hospitals in London? While congratulating the Minister for Health on giving our own Westminster hospital a two-year reprieve, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will do something about stopping the closure of the third major section, that is, the radiography and oncology departments, because we have already lost cardiac surgery and ophthalmology?

Provision for the Riverside health authority, which is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, is affected by the reallocation procedure, partly because the population will fall by 10 per cent. in the next eight years. Despite that, there has been a steady increase in the number of patients treated and a small increase in the number of staff directly concerned with patient care. However, the RAWP procedure is being considered and the National Health Service management board will report by the end of the year. I take it that the Labour party wants the end of the reallocation procedure which it started. The midlands and the north have benefited very greatly from the increase in Health Service expenditure, which has gone from £7·5 billion under Labour to £17·5 billion a year.

Is it not completely wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to give the impression that there have been cuts in total resources for the Health Service, when in reality they have increased? Is he aware that constituencies like mine, which benefit from the reallocation of resources, welcome the change very much indeed?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Leader of the Opposition does not know that to go from £7·5 billion to £17·5 billion a year is an increase and not a cut.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether any of the talk about a balanced team has reached her ears? Will she give us the assurance that her idea of a balanced team is the present incumbent of Conservative Central Office and Mr. Jeffrey Archer?

A balanced team won in 1979 and in 1983, and hopes to gain a third return ticket.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it remains just as much the case today as it was before last Thursday that living standards and social provision have to be earned and paid for? Does she agree that there will always be politicians who offer free beer, but that there are large numbers of electors who are nursing painful memories of the last binge, and that when it comes to the general election the people will vote soberly and sensibly for her policies of realism?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, for policies which have brought an increased standard of living, increased production, increased wealth ownership throughout the country, better trade union reform and respect abroad. I believe the people will vote for us in a third election.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

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

Has the Prime Minister seen reports that there are now 13 million people in Britain living in poverty? Can she say whether this is a record of which she is proud, or is the real truth that her Government have pauperised millions of our fellow citizens?

The standard of living, both of those in work and of those on social security, is higher than it has ever been before.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of the trust and support that we showed to the United States in its fight against terrorism recently, that there will be profound dismay throughout the whole of the United Kingdom if we do not have immediate approval of the extradition treaty?

Yes. The President and Administration are doing their best to try to bring that about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has gone to the United States to say how strongly we feel about it. I hope that both will be successful in achieving the desired result.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what punishment she intends to mete out to her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who now has publicly portrayed her as the lame duck Prime Minister?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. He did in fact make many robust policy points on Sunday with which I wholly agree.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order for you arising out of Prime Minister's questions. We all appreciate the difficulty that you have in trying to make sure that all groups within the House have a chance to speak, especially at Prime Minister's Question Time. Some of us have noticed that, since the interview that the Leader of the House gave on television last Sunday, there are two discernible groups in the Tory camp. What we are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that in future, so that you get the balanced ticket right in the House of Commons, instead of calling just anybody from the Conservative Benches, you should make sure you call the Biffen faction and the Thatcher faction, so that that balance can be continued.

The hon. Member may like to know that I never watch television on Sunday.