asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the future procurement by his Department of Rolls-Royce aero engines, and engines in which Rolls-Royce plc has a participation, over the next five years.

Over the next five years the Department foresees continuing purchases of R B 199, Pegasus, Gnome and Gem engines in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of the services.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, on the military side, the company's order book, especially because of its own efforts in obtaining export orders, has never looked healthier? My hon. Friend's answer will give confidence to the work force and the management in looking forward to the continued prosperity of the company when it is privatised.

As the Rolls-Royce, Barnoldswick factory is in my constituency, I am especially proud of the achievements which have been made by Rolls-Royce during the past few years. Privatisation is, of course, a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I understand that it is intended that the flotation will take place during the first half of 1987. Defence orders will play a considerable part in that flotation.

Will the Minister say something about the RTM 322 helicopter engine? Will he also consider doing something about new engines and prop jet engines, as is being done at NASA for the Americans?

The RTM 322 is being developed by Rolls-Royce and Turbo Meca. It is a mainly private venture operation. It is a contender for the EHI01, but at present no decisions have been taken.

Would not the prospects for Rolls-Royce after privatisation both in Britain and abroad be further improved if orders could be gained for a super Pegasus engine, which is currently being developed at Filton?

There is a Rolls-Royce initiative to uprate the GR5 Pegasus engine. Although there is a formal requirement for this at the present time, we are attracted by its lower life-cycle costs and better performance. We are looking at it in conjunction with the United States marine corps.

Will my hon. Friend explain the position vis-a-vis funding from his Department for the XG40 programme, which we hope will be the basis for the new engine for the European fighter aircraft?

I cannot give a precise answer at this stage, but I shall endeavour to write to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to notify the Dartmoor national park committee of his proposals to replace buildings at the Willsworthy shooting range.

We shall consult the committee immediately should we decide that we wish to proceed with the replacement of Willsworthy camp. At present we are still considering the proposal.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it would be wrong to build a barracks on Dartmoor? It is not essential to build a barracks there. The troops can be bussed to the moor quite easily. I am not opposed to the Royal Artillery being in the area; it is simply that it seems quite wrong to build a barracks on Dartmoor.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The Army has been on Dartmoor for almost 100 years. We are talking about the replacement not of barracks but of temporary accommodation. Because I understand my hon. Friend's concern, I look forward to visiting Dartmoor in September. I hope that I can find a convenient date to go there with him.

I think that the House owes a deep debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), whose love of Dartmoor is well known. It is not just a question of a few shacks on Dartmoor. I am told that it will be a multi-storey, mixed sex barracks. It will be two or three miles within the Dartmoor national park. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Defence is exempt from planning consent, it is quite wrong for the Minister to collude and allow the Ministry to destroy the boundaries of the national park by building a barracks in the way proposed.

I think that my hon. Friend knows a lot more about the plans than I do. No plans have been finalised. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), I am undertaking to go to Dartmoor in September to look at that site and all possible sites.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any members of the South African armed forces are currently receiving training in the United Kingdom.

No.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome answer. Will he give an assurance that the policy that he has just stated and which was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North ( Mr. McNamara), on behalf of the Labour Government in 1976, will carry on in a most determined way?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Since 1976, under successive Governments, there has been no military co-operation with and no military training for South African military personnel in this country. There is no military co-operation between the two countries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there might be something to be said for South Africans coming here, to see how training is conducted on an entirely non-racist basis?

My hon. and learned Friend makes an intriguing point. I confirm that for the past 10 years our policy has been and will continue to be one of no military co-operation between the two countries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be an admirable idea for South African forces to be trained in this country? It is in the interests of the West and of our own nation that South Africa should have a Government friendly to the West, safeguarding the Cape route and taking care of the valuable minerals there. Surely, none of us wants a Communist Government in that part of the world.

I am somewhat disappointed by my hon. Friend. I repeat that our policy is and will remain one of no military co-operation between this country and the Government of South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on the outcome of his visit to Pakistan in relation to the sale of frigates.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not been to Pakistan.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when I put down the question two weeks ago, a visit was expected within a few days? Does he realise how vital it is for the people of Southampton that the order for type 21 frigates is won in Pakistan? Does he accept that the only way to win the order is for a Minister to go to Pakistan and tie up the final negotiations? Can my hon. Friend assure me that a Minister will visit Pakistan before the end of the month?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern for Vospers. It is a delicate matter. Negotiations are continuing. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement visited Pakistan in support of the order in November 1985. A further ministerial visit is under active discussion.

Besides the export potential of frigates, the Minister will be concerned with the export potential of their accompanying fleet auxiliaries. Can he now perhaps explain why the Harland and Wolff designs for our premier fleet auxiliary the AOR 1 were said in the House in April to have been comprehensively costed, yet, as we were told only a week ago, are still being reviewed by the Ministry of Defence?

I believe that this matter has been explained to the appropriate House of Commons Committee. Swan Hunter will be provided with the basic Harland and Wolff tender package at the end of August. That is now being examined to ensure that information given in commercial confidence to Harland and Wolff is not passed on to Swan Hunter. If Swan Hunter indicates on the basis of the basic tender that it is interested in tendering, it will be given detailed design drawings by January 1987 to enable it to provide a meaningful tender.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the export history of Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering to the Indian subcontinent. May I renew the invitation, which I gave to the Secretary of State on his appointment to that office, to visit Barrow and see, not only the shipyards, but the engineering parts of the complex?

My hon. Friend never fails to get in a plug for the Vickers yard in his constituency, and we fully expect that to continue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence heard his point, and I am sure that he will be visiting Vickers relatively soon.

The Minister referred to the delicate negotiations with Pakistan. Has he also taken into account the other delicacy, which is relations with India and the anxieties in India over the build-up of armaments by Pakistan? What arrangements, if any, are being made for consultations with India in respect of armaments in that area?

Obviously, we have ongoing business and relationships with both Pakistan and India. I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that recently we sold Hermes to India.

Ministry of Defence efforts in Pakistan and, indeed, Greece are greatly appreciated, but is my hon. Friend aware that the first question asked by any prospective purchaser is whether the Royal Navy has placed orders with the yard in question? In that connection, will my hon. Friend ensure that Vosper Thornycroft is always given fair consideration for Royal Navy orders?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the promotion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was last discussed at a Defence Planning Committee meeting.

Questions related to the need to explain and encourage public support for NATO policies are frequently discussed at Defence Planning Committee and North Atlantic Council meetings.

Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that young people in particular are subject to large amounts of anti-NATO and anti-nuclear propaganda, increasingly under the guise of peace studies, and that, for example, the public perception would he that the NATO nuclear stockpile is not at its lowest level for 20 years, as is the case, but that it is probably at its highest? Should not NATO he doing more to inform the public of its role in the peace movement?

I agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal more could be done to bring home to many people, especially young people, the importance of the NATO Alliance, which is absolutely essential for the whole posture of our defence policy. On promoting the importance of NATO, it is up to NATO, which has a budget for this purpose, and individual members, such as the United Kingdom, to do all they can in that regard. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that I shall do all I can to forward that.

What would happen to NATO if the Labour party kicked out the Americans from their bases in the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend has hit on an extremely serious possibility, but he may agree that the prospect of that happening is rather remote. However, if it did, I would feel extremely worried about how the general public in America would react and what the effect of that would be on the Alliance thereafter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps more should be done, literally on a NATO basis, to put forward the NATO cause in partnership with what is done by individual NATO countries? Could not the NATO defence college do more than it is doing to spread what might be described as the NATO cause?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that perhaps more should be done by NATO. The NATO press and information service, which works closely with Government information services, maintains an active programme of films, audio visual productions, seminars and visits. My hon. and learned Friend might be interested to know that in 1985 no fewer than 76 groups from the United Kingdom visited NATO, and 60 groups have visited NATO so far this year. NATO is far from being inactive in this area, but I am sure that it could do more.

asked the Secretary of State for the Defence whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent noise survey taken near RAF Cottesmore.

It will take some time to evaluate the results of the noise survey. It is therefore too early to say which villages or how many additional houses will qualify for grant assistance when the improved scheme is applied at RAF Cottesmore.

I thank my hon. Friend for arranging for the second survey to be carried out, but will he drastically speed up this exercise'? It is impossible for my constituents to understand why this exercise should take so long. Surely it could be sorted out in a week or so?

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the improvements to the scheme that I announced last November must be welcomed by his constituents. However, it will take a little time to cover the 50 or so airfields which the improved scheme will benefit. I assure my hon. Friend that we will make haste as quickly as we possibly can.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to extend the role of volunteers in home defence.

Current planning already envisages a continuing expansion of our reserve forces for home defence tasks.

Bearing in mind the well-known need to secure the home base more effectively in an emergency, does my hon. Friend agree that it might be a good idea to introduce some form of voluntary national service for young people to supplement the good work carried out by the reserve and home defence volunteers?

My hon. Friend raises a different point. He will know that, in relation to home defence, we have plans for a Home Defence Force of approximately 5,000 by 1990, and we intend to increase the Territorial Army. Within that time frame to 1990, that is the correct policy and plan to ensure national security.

Does the Minister agree that within the Conservative party there are elements who would argue that the so-called Home Defence Force could be used as strike breakers to attack the working class and hold them down in periods of struggle against the Government?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Home Service Force, not the Home Defence Force. The Home Service Force is currently 3,100 strong and has some way to go before it reaches its target ceiling. Its main function is simply the defence of key installations.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, even with these forces allocated to protect key installations, and even when they are at full strength, they must be kept under review because there may be a need to extend the number of key installations to guard?

My hon. Friend is correct. I am grateful for his continuing interest in home defence. When we reach the target levels, that will be the right time to review policy to see whether there is the correct balance of commitments within the balance of resources. We will then review policy.

As an ex-local defence volunteer, Home Guard and an ex-Regular Army man, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the defence force in its reserve capacity—the Territorial Army and the Home Defence Force—is probably the best value for money available? Would my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) accept from me that he was very uncomplimentary to the many thousands of decent working-class men and women who are members of those forces when he suggested that they join to become strike breakers?

I share the hon. Gentleman's views about the value of the Territorial Army. I join him in paying tribute to the TA for its excellent work.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that a ministerial undertaking was given to the Select Committee on Defence that the 300,000 or more self-loading rifles which have now become surplus to requirements for the Regular forces will not be disposed of, but will be retained against the possibility that we may have to expand greatly the Home Services Forces in future?

If my hon. Friend will permit me, I shall write to him with the answer to that question.

In view of the great success of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in aerodrome defence and recruiting, is my hon. Friend able to announce a helicopter squadron for the Auxiliaries, which is long overdue?

No, I am not yet able to make any announcement. It is not within my direct responsibilities, in any case. However, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribue to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Reserve, which, as with the Territorial Army, performs an excellent job.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the results of his Department's studies into the reasons for premature voluntary outflow from the services.

The Ministry of Defence takes a continuing interest in the reasons for premature voluntary outflow. As part of that process a number of specific studies are currently under way and results are expected to become available by about the end of the year.

Is the Minister aware of the view of a number of senior officers that one major cause of the worrying outflow of skilled and experienced personnel is that our armed forces are overstretched and are being asked to do too much with limited resources, which has an adverse impact on the personal lives of the service men concerned? If that turns out to be a factor, what will the Government do to put it right?

Obviously, by its nature, service life is turbulent, but we are conducting thorough reviews. There is a new form of questionnaire for those seeking premature voluntary retirement. When we have those results, which I hope will be accurate, we shall be able to judge the reasons—there may he more than one—for premature voluntary outflow.

Is the Minister aware that the overstretch to which the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred is particularly evident in the Royal Navy, where ships are now putting in more sea time than in world war 2 and the 1930s? Does that not point to the urgent need for replacement ships, apart from additional surface ships, because they are a good deal less labour-intensive?

The PVR figures, particularly for the Royal Navy, show that there is some levelling off. There might even be some early evidence of improvement. The PVR figures for this year are considerably below those for 1978–79, when the previous Government suspended pay comparability.

Is it not an excellent thing, if the supplementary questions are correct, that the services are being stretched? Is not that what service life is about? Is not the best way of simulating wartime conditions to stretch the services, and does it not show that peacetime soldiering is not an idle occupation?

As I have said, when the results of the study are available we shall be able to judge what the reasons are — there may be more than one — for the current PVR rate.

Does the Minister accept that the present formulation of Falklands pay is less than helpful in the retention of the men in all three services? Will he repeal the formula and make Falklands pay from day one, as it should be?

Since 1979 the Government have accepted and implemented all the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommendations. Our experience is that armed forces personnel in all three services and at all levels greatly appreciate what the Government have done with regard to pay.

Does my hon. Friend agree that at times when the civil airlines are in the market for pilots, the Royal Air Force has traditionally lost a substantial number of trained personnel to those airlines, and that we are now in such a situation? Could not those highly skilled, trained people who are going out to the civil airlines be used by the Royal Air Force to its advantage if they were kept in an auxiliary or reserve flying role?

My hon. Friend is right. He has put his finger on the problem. The problem has been continuing for a considerable time, but we are studying it.

Given the signs of racial discrimination in the British Army—

Rubbish.

It is not rubbish—will the Minister look carefully to see whether it is likely that black soldiers are leaving the Army early because they are not given the same opportunities for promotion as their white contemporaries?

That is pure speculation. The policy of the Government, which has been consistent under different Administrations, is that racial discrimination is not tolerated. That is the Government's clear and firm policy.

Are not the lack of resources to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred affecting the ability of many of our service men to exercise as fully as possible? Is it not having a damaging effect on morale? Is it not the case that, until the Secretary of State and his Ministers face up to the budgetary crisis in the Ministry of Defence, those problems will not be solved or go away?

I do not share the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not believe, and there is no evidence to show, that our armed forces are prevented from exercising properly.

Further to the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), is not the continuing loss to the flying service of fast jet pilots a great economic loss to the nation, because they are trained at £3 million apiece? Is it not about time that an effective flying role was found for them in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, as is the case with the Air National Guard in the United States reserve?

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. The loss of our pilots to the civil airlines is of some concern, but we should not get it out of proportion. We are looking at the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what defence procurement projects of a value greater than £10 million are at present running behind schedule.

The Ministry has a well-developed system which ensures that all projects running seriously behind schedule are brought to the notice of senior officials and, for major projects, Ministers. Information about major projects is also regularly made available to the Public Accounts and Defence Select Committees. The detailed information requested, however, would require a special survey and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Bearing in mind the Government's decision to cut defence spending in real terms and the escalating cost of Trident — one national newspaper, normally friendly to the Government, recently called it the "cuckoo in the nest" — will the hon. Gentleman now come clean and tell us which of the smaller projects are likely to he abandoned?

I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman is here. I should have thought that he would be campaigning in the by-election and endeavouring to explain the inconsistencies of, and to fill the gaps in, the alliance's defence policy. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was on dangerous ground in talking about Trident. It is by no means the "cuckoo in the nest". One must compare like with like. Over a 20-year period the cost of Trident was just under £10 billion, compared with the escalating cost of the British Army of the Rhine, which, over that same period, was no less than £46 billion.

While on the subject of long-running sagas, will my hon. Friend update the position of the Nimrod AEW programme? Will he tell the House that British Aerospace has had nothing whatsoever to do with that sorry saga and that it has performed well and delivered on time?

I acknowledge that we have had some horrors in our procurement programme. Seven bids were received on 7 July, from Airship Industries, Boeing, Grumman, Lockheed, GEC, MEL and Pilatus Britten Norman. A decision will be taken in the autumn. I am pleased to confirm that we were happy with the airframe part of Nimrod, which was constructed by British Aerospace.

Notwithstanding his answer, will the Minister say whether the CI30 frame might be used—

Is this a question?

If the hon. Gentleman would clean his ears out, he would have heard me say "will the Minister". Will the Minister say whether the C130 frame might he used with the electronic kit for the airborne early warning system?

I believe that there is a question on this matter later in the Order Paper. There are many permutations within the seven bids that have been received.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the placing of procurement contracts with British companies.

We buy British whenever it is sensible, economic and consistent with our international obligations to do so, and acquire from overseas only when the advantages of cost, performance and time scale outweigh the longer-term benefits of procuring the British alternative. The criteria used in deciding the source of our requirements are set out in the 1983 open government document "Value for Money in Defence Procurement".

I hope that my hon. Friend will be protecting British jobs and British exports in my constituency in the company of Cossor Electronics by throwing out a bid by the American company that is called Bendix, which is using predatory pricing to get a foothold in the British market at the expense of British jobs. When are we to have a British procurement policy.

By and large, we have a British procurement policy. We are proud that about 90 to 95 per cent. of total procurement spend is spent with United Kingdom industry. As for the IFF competition, I can assure my hon. Friend that the strong and genuine representations that he has made to Ministry of Defence Ministers on behalf of the important Cossor factory in his constituency will be seriously taken into account, but we have a competition on at present.

May we have an inquiry into the case of Mr. Don Pitman, a former employee of Thorn EMI, who reported his company for making excess profits on defence contracts? May we have a statement also on when the Government intend to reply to the Public Accounts Committee's report on excess profits by defence contractor Aish and Company? Will the principle of compensation, which we have advocated, be accepted by the Government, and will Mr. Smith, who is in deep financial trouble, be compensated fully for laying his job on the line in the way that he did three years ago?

I believe that there will be a response to the PAC fairly shortly. I am not aware that any investigation is planned into the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the earlier part of his supplementary question.

It is highly desirable that we should have the largest possible British procurement programme, but is not the concomitant of that that weapons systems should be delivered on time and to cost? Will he study the reports of the PAC, which make pretty depressing reading?

I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We are becoming increasingly a hard-nosed and commercial Department. Many aspects of our procurement policy are being tightened.

What order is about to be placed with the Royal Ordnance factory at Barnbow, Leeds?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relates to another question, but we are giving serious consideration to the seventh Challenger regiment, which I believe the hon. Gentleman is getting at.

Are not British procurement opportunities and production runs being undermined by the French, who are surreptitiously selling helicopters to South Africa in defiance of the United Nations arms embargo?

I have no intention of flying with my hon. Friend on that route.

Will the Minister give the assurance that was given to the Committee that considered the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill, as it was then, that there is no intention of selling off the ROFs piecemeal in the course of privatisation?

I cannot give that assurance. Such an assurance was never given to that Committee, in which the right hon. Gentleman and I were deeply involved. We said that the preferred option for privatisation was a flotation of the whole, but we did not rule out, in certain circumstances, the sale of individual factories. We would much prefer, however, to deal with Royal Ordnance as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total area in acres in the Falkland Islands at present unusable because of Argentine mines.

The total area in the Falkland Islands presently unusable because of Argentine mines amounts to about 6,440 acres compared with an area of about 3 million acres for the islands as a whole.

While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the land in question is accessible to some of the main centres of the Falklands? What discussions are taking place and what evaluation is taking place on how to detect those mines, which I understand are not metallic but are made of plastic?

My hon. Friend is entirely right, in that most of the remaining Argentine mines are concentrated round Port Stanley, which is the main centre of population on the Falkland Islands. During the past year of so, the Ministry of Defence has been carrying out an in-depth research programme, on which about £3 million has already been spent, to try to deal with the problem. So far we have been unable to identify, and even if we spent many millions of pounds more we would be unable to identify, a sufficiently safe way of clearing those mines that could be employed in peace-time. Three Engineers were seriously wounded in the immediate aftermath of the Falklands campaign while trying to clear those mines. My hon. Friend will agree that it would be unjustifiable to risk maiming for life other sappers while trying to deal with the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations his Department has received from British Aerospace in respect of the Nimrod AEW Mk. III.

None, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Aerospace, which is responsible for the airframe of the Nimrod, has in every way honoured its part of the contract and come up to scratch, without any reservation whatsoever? Can my right hon. Friend say that there has been a breakthrough by GEC Avionics, which is responsible for the other part of the contract, and that there is now no chance that the contract, which is so vital to British Aerospace and to British manufacturing industry, will be placed abroad? If it is, it will be a disaster for employment in my constituency and in the areas represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) and Stockport (Mr. Favell). Will he assure us that the contract will be British and that he will buy British for the benefit of British employment'?

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the work carried out by British Aerospace on the Nimrod AEW Mk Ill project is well advanced. However, a decision on the future of the project must take into account the implications my hon. Friend mentioned. I shall say no more about the bidders for the contract, as I wish to assess them all on an equal basis. I shall be waiting to see not only the bids that are put in, but the performance of the equipment to which those bids relate.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that a statement will be made to the House when that decision is taken, that it will not be taken during the recess when hon. Members will have no chance to question him and that there will be a proper statement, not a hole-in-corner operation such as we are getting today in relation to the frigates?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I can tell him that it will be some considerable time yet before I am likely to decide on the matter. I note what he says about the necessity of a statement to the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard that, and I shall certainly take it into account.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whichever company is successful in obtaining the AEW contract, RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire will continue to be used as a base for AEW operations?

I cannot give quite such a categorical undertaking, but I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong interest in ensuring that that is so. Such decisions must await the result of the competition, which looks like being a most successful one, for the best equipment to fit the RAF with this important capability.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent testing of a British nuclear warhead in the Nevada desert.

A British nuclear device was successfully detonated at the United States Nevada test site on 25 June. The yield was between 20 and 150 kilotons. The test was undertaken with the co-operation of the United States under the auspices of the mutual defence agreement of 1958.

Is the Minister aware that in the opinion of the majority of British people the action of exploding that device was outrageous and provocative, especially in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster? At a time when Britain's ordinary defence forces are being reduced, why are we wasting money on such outrageous actions?

The hon. Gentleman says that it was outrageous. If he believes that, I hope that he will ask himself why it was that during the time when the negotiations were taking place for a comprehensive test ban treaty under the last Labour Government, that Government detonated British nuclear devices on 11 April 1978 and again on 18 November 1978.

What has been the Government's response to the Soviet moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, which has been in operation now for almost a year?

The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that since 1979 the Soviet Union has undertaken in excess of 150 tests, while the British Government have undertaken only 11.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in having weapons delivery systems unless the warheads fitted to those delivery systems function and do the job for which they are intended, and that there is only one way to find that out, and that is to test them?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear capability as the test programme takes place. That is exactly the same view as that taken by the Labour Government, as they stated in this House of Commons.

What is the Government's view now on a comprehensive test ban treaty, since both American and Soviet scientists agree that, with the sophisticated seismic equipment available today, it is virtually impossible to conduct an underground test without it being detected? In view of that, why do the Government not now agree to a comprehensive test ban treaty?

As we have said on many previous occasions, that is not the current scientific view of British Government or, indeed. The American Government, and there are still substantial verification problems that have to be overcome.

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

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

Is the right hon. Lady in favour of early majority rule in South Africa on the basis of one-person one-vote, or is she not?

The hon. Lady is well aware that the question is not one-person, one-vote —[Interruption.] It might be as well to listen to the end of the sentence first. It is whether it is one-person state one-vote in a unitary state, or a federal state, so the question that she asks is not the correct one.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real divide in this country is between those of us who believe that the state should always be the servant of the people and those Opposition Members who want the state always to be the master of the people, and that no playing around with words such as transposing "social ownership" for "nationalisation" will hide that fact from the people of this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Social ownership is nationalisation and control by Government under another name. We want to reduce the control by Government and increase the freedom on the part of the citizens of this country.

Against the background of last week and, indeed, last weekend why does the Prime Minister keep insisting that sanctions and negotiations are somehow mutually exclusive alternatives when it is obvious to everyone, including many members of her own party, that real negotiations will be secured only when there are strict sanctions against apartheid, and that persuasion without pressure is utterly hopeless?

The right hon. Gentleman uses a new word when he refers to "strict" sanctions; he does not define it. As he will know, his party has rejected general economic sanctions, and every party in power has rejected general economic sanctions for the simple reason that they have never been known to work to bring about internal change. If they will not work to bring about internal change, why does he want to impose them?

Not for the first time the Prime Minister dodges any question that is really related to apartheid. Last week she said that she had done quite well by persuasion, particularly in the last 18 months. In that 18 months the horrific truth is that 2,000 people have been killed in South Africa, the South African regime has undertaken armed aggression against three Commonwealth countries, thousands of people have been put in detention without trial, there have been two states of emergency and two acts of unprecedented oppression. Is that what the right hon. Lady means by doing quite well in the last 18 months?

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. If sanctions will not work to bring about internal change, why in the world does he want to bring them in? He knows full well that they would cause starvation of children and that they would cause unemployment in South Africa on a wide scale and unemployment in this country. Why does he continue to want them under those circumstances?

The Prime Minister's interest in morality in South Africa is very recent indeed. What has she been doing about the fact that half the children in the homelands die as babies? What has she ever done about the fact that there is one doctor to 44,000 black Africans? What has she ever done about the basic atrocity of apartheid? We should not take lectures, and certainly the people of South Africa will not take lectures, from the right hon. Lady about morality.

Nor do I take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman, whose party voted against sanctions when it was the Government. Perhaps he will listen to what Chief Buthelezi said in a letter to The Guardian recently:

"My forefathers fought British imperialism; today I am prepared to die for democracy, and I will not rest until apartheid is dead. But I am not prepared to lead my people into a battle where they will be decimated. South Africa cannot and will not be liberated with the blood of children." [Interruption.]

Order. Will hon. Gentlemen please not shout at each other across the Chamber.

Will my hon. Friend try once more to explain to Opposition Members that by far the best way to raise the dignity, political status and prosperity of black South Africans is not to isolate the South African economy, but to follow the advice of Mrs. Helen Suzman, a fighter for black rights, by expanding investment in black South Africa and bringing new enterprise, managerial expertise and know-how to the black community? Will my right hon. Friend say what talks she has had with other industrial countries and Governments to further such positive enterprise instead of trying to ruin the South African economy, black and white?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Mrs. Suzman also wrote an article in The Times a few days ago. Speaking about sanctions, she said:

"The likely effect in South Africa would he the imposition of a siege economy and more repression."

Has the Prime Minister noted the speech made at lunchtime today by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, in which he reminded us that some of the arguments used today against sanctions are the same as were used by the West Indian planters against the abolition of slavery in the last century? Will she also note that he believes that the decision of the Commonwealth Games Federation yesterday has created what he calls a "window of opportunity" for all nations to come to the Edinburgh games? That window must not be shut in London. Will the Prime Minister support his call?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it was this House which had a great deal to do with the abolition of slavery. It had nothing to do with sanctions. We should be proud of the record of this House, before there was a Labour party, in getting rid of slavery.

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

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her recent visit to Vancouver, and on batting for British jobs and work. Will she please take every opportunity in her travels abroad and when she meets overseas visitors in London to point out to them that the new Rover car is a victory for joint design and technology?

I know that my hon. Friend never loses an opportunity to bat for interests in his constituency and that he never loses an opportunity to hat for that particular car, an opportunity that I share with him. The display in the British pavillion was absolutely first class and demonstrated all that is best in British industry and all of its successes. We are particularly good on several makes of cars and also on the railbus and the Leyland Bus. It was also very good that there was the first flypast of Concorde, which was very much welcomed by the people of Vancouver. It showed how good we are in aerospace matters.

After arguing the case for sanctions against Libya, Afghanistan, Poland and other places, why has the Prime Minister suddenly taken such an extreme dislike to sanctions against South Africa? Surely she must realise that the British people and the British Commonwealth are crying out for moral leadeship over sanctions, the type of moral leadership which, at long last, the Church of England has given?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when it came to sanctions against Libya we argued that they do not work unless they are totally and utterly universal, and they never are. That is why they were not put on. Certainly we had good cause to turn out of London the Libyan People's Bureau, but that was not an economic sanction. Certainly we have good cause to refuse to supply defence equipment to Libya. Also, we have absolutely refused to supply defence equipment to South Africa. As for moral sense, I see nothing moral in trying to cause starvation and unemployment for people and children in South Africa.

When she quoted from last week's edition of The Guardian, why did the right hon. Lady not quote the editorial, which asked when she last took the lead in feeding the starving, when she had shown some sign of trying to find jobs for people without prospects and why, having read the Brandt report, she passed by on the other side? Is it not clear from that, that, while reading moral lectures to people who do not require them, her guiding principle is support for the South African regime?

As the right hon. Gentleman refers to The Guardian, may I say that I thought that there were one or two rather successful interviews in The Guardian last week. which managed to get across a number of facts that needed to be stated. There were also letters, from one of which I have quoted. As the right hon. Gentleman invited me to go on, let me quote further from the letter from which I have already quoted. Chief Buthelezi said:

"Today, more than ever, negotiation and peaceful change is within our grasp. Whites, more than ever, are ready to negotiate. Nobody can say exactly when and how, but one thing I do know: senseless violence will not help our cause."

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

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

My right hon. Friend, who is to be congratulated on her forthcoming visit to Moscow, will recollect that Mr. Gorbachev told Lord Whitelaw's recent IPU delegation that he wanted a summit, but Mr. Gorbachev understandably added that there was no point in having one unless it could agree about something. Will my right hon. Friend do her utmost to secure a summit? Will she also do her utmost to secure the prospects of an agreement on chemical weapons and, I dare say, on other matters as well?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that most people hope that there will be a summit between President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev, and that there will be a summit this year. It will be fruitful if it succeeds in reaching some decisions on arms control, possibly as a prelude to a third summit next year. As my hon. Friend says, I believe that chemical weapons offer an area in which the Soviet Union could follow the lead given by Britain and the United States, in that she could substantially reduce her stockpile and agree not to engage in any more manufacturing of these weapons. Also, I believe that there is some hope of making further progress on intermediate nuclear weapons. There are very interesting proposals on the table now between the United States and the Soviet Union. I believe that they will be prosecuted with the utmost urgency and I hope that they will lead to a successful summit.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list heir official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.

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

What does the Prime Minister mean by her earlier reference to a choice between a unitary and a federal state in South Africa? Does she want to see more Bantustans?

With respect, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know what the difference is without needing a lesson on it.

Will my right hon. Friend check with her right hon. and hon. Friends to find out how many letters they have received on the issue of sanctions against South Africa? 1 am sure she will find that there is no great pressure from our constituents to impose sanctions against South Africa. It is a whipped-up media campaign, and our constituents do not like the hypocrisy of other African nations which have dictatorships, and which could teach South Africa a thing or two.

We certainly have not received many letters compared with the amount that we receive on some other subjects. I think that people are very much aware that the Labour party's policy would mean lost jobs and a great deal of misery among those whom we seek to help in South Africa.

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

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

Following the Prime Minister's visit to Canada, can she name a single Commonwealth Head who does not favour sanctions?

I think that there are other Commonwealth Heads — [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?, Where?"]—who do not favour sanctions. It is not for me to mention them here. There are many Commonwealth Heads who do not favour general economic sanctions, and most of them are talking about signals and gestures. That is totally different from the Labour party's policy, which is to create unemployment in South Africa in order to create unemployment here.