asked the Secretary of Defence what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the United States concerning the strategic defence initiative; and if he will make a statement.

I have had a number of discussions on SDI with representatives of the United States Government in recent weeks, including at the NATO nuclear planning group meeting at Gleneagles. The detail of those discussions is confidential, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the NPG communiquéé, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

Is it not the case that the Reykjavik summit demonstrated that the illusion of SDI, far from enhancing the possibility of nuclear disarmament, is the main stumbling block? In the light of that, should not the Secretary of State have a word with the Prime Minister and ask her to tell President Reagan that we believe that the only reason why America wants British involvement is to rip off commercial research and development by British firms? Will the Secretary of State come clean about the anti-tactical ballistic missile initiative and make an honest statement? Finally, will he tell President Reagan to withdraw this proposal and grasp the offer made by Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik?

Nothing that happened at Reykjavik alters the fact that the Soviet Union has been engaged in research into strategic defence matters for a long time, and that its efforts at Reykjavik were aimed at trying to prevent the United States from doing the same while carrying on doing it itself, which seems wholly unreasonable.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we can get away from the doctrine of MAD — mutually assured destruction—that would be of great advantage to the world, not just the East, but the West as well? Do we not want to get away from that and substitute something effective, which will work to ensure peace for the future?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, and that is why the Government put such a high priority on encouraging our allies in the United States to negotiate as strongly as they can for reductions, in arms provided that they are balanced reductions, including all types of armaments, so that security in the West can be maintained.

Do the Government believe that SDI can create an impenetrable nuclear shield which will make nuclear weapons unnecessary? How will that help Europe?

The purpose of the SDI programme is to establish whether such techniques can produce such an effect and, if so, whether they can be deployed to be an extra protection for the West. British participation is based on the fact that it is research into that possibility and no further.

Was not the President of the United States in a sense set up by the Soviets at Reykjavik? Does my right hon. Friend agree that for General-Secretary Gorbachev to make the abandonment of SDI a precondition for arms control progress was a dangerous step on his part, as the whole world was looking forward to an early sumit in the United States, with an agenda settled at Reykjavik and agreed by both sides?

My hon. Friend is correct to suggest that had President Reagan agreed to the one condition that the Soviet Union and Mr. Gorbachev tried to lay down at Reykjavik he would have given away the right of the West to research into those matters while leaving the Soviet Union free to continue to do so. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that that would be a dangerous mistake and we should be grateful to President Reagan for not agreeing to it.

In the wake of the Reykjavik conference and the briefing that the Prime Minister received from Mr. Gorbachev's special emissary — a report which the Secretary of State for Defence must have read—to what extent was the SDI barrier responsible for the breakdown of the talks? If the SDI is so important, what are the prospects of any arms reductions between East and West and further talks?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. At present it is not clear whether the Soviet Union is mainly worried about the precise definition of research and getting a tighter limit upon that, or whether it will be so completely opposed to the SDI programme in any conceivable circumstances that that will be a stopping point to any progress. I hope that that is not the case, but it is one matter that must be explored at Geneva.

Will my right hon. Friend spell out the new projects on which British scientisits are engaged in this area and what advantages are likely to accrue to Britain as a result? Is it not sensible that Britain should be involved in anti-missile defence? Will that give us some chance of playing a part in the decision whether the project could be implemented in the next century?

I cannot give precise details of each project in which British firms are involved. At present about $17 million worth of business is coming to British firms as part of the SDI programme. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that such research, in which British firms are participating, is trying only to establish whether such techniques will be important for the defensive shield of the West in future.

In an earlier answer the right hon. Gentleman said that it was the British Government's view that arms should be reduced. As President Reagan offered at Reykjavik to get rid of all strategic nuclear weaponry within 10 years, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Government were consulted on that offer and whether they approve of and agree with it?

The British Government were closely, effectively and constantly consulted in the preparations for the Reykjavik summit. I could not possibly have expected any closer consultation than there was. During the two days of the summit, the discussions naturally had to be conducted between those who were present, not others who were then in America or in Europe. It has always been the British Government's objective to achieve reductions in arms. If, in due course, taking into account all factors, including conventional and chemical weapons, we could approach a period of big reductions or even zero weapons, we would be prepared to take part in that process. But we are not prepared to accept only one part of it on its own.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any British officials or scientists were present at the recent American testing of SDI equipment in the Nevada desert.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the nuclear test that was carried out in the Nevada desert on 16 October and which has been confirmed publicly by the United States Department of Energy. No British officials or scientists were present.

Is it true that the SDI scuppered the Reykjavik disarmament talks and that further star wars tests mean further nuclear tests to determine the feasibility of the X-ray system? When will the Government realise that if they want disarmament and a comprehensive test ban treaty, the sooner they get off the Reagan bandwagon the better?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been no suggestion that that nuclear test was related to the strategic defence initiative. The Americans have made it clear that they abide by the anti-ballistic missile treaty and, therefore, no nuclear tests in space would be permitted as part of the research into the SDI programme. The hon. Gentleman's question falls on both parts. As for the ending of the Reykjavik summit, the reason why agreement was almost achieved but was not reached was the insistence of the Soviet Union that the Americans should abandon their SDI research, while leaving the Soviet Union free to do its own. That was an extraordinarily bad bargain, which President Reagan was right to refuse.

If Britain were to adopt the defence policy, or lack of policy, which has been sold to the Labour party by Mrs. Ruddock and Mrs. Kinnock, would we not find that, with no Americans in Europe and with no nuclear weapons in Western Europe, the only way that we could defend ourselves would be with our own SDI?

My hon. Friend may well be right on that point. If the British Government had followed the policies advocated by the CND, the Labour party and others, we should he left now with the Soviet Union not being prepared to negotiate on any aspect of cruise missiles and we should have the SS20s pointed towards us in western Europe, with nothing to counter them. It seems to me that this episode is a complete demolition of the whole theory upon which the CND is based.

The Secretary of State has twice alluded to Soviet breaches of treaty obligations. Have the Soviets in any way breached the ABM treaty, and has this matter been raised by the United States with the Soviet Union?

On a point of correction, I do not think that I have suggested at any time this afternoon that the Soviet Union has breached the ABM treaty, and I make no such suggestion now. I understand that both sides are prepared to keep within the ABM treaty, but that there is some dispute as to the precise definition of what it involves.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total value of all contracts recently placed by his Department with Rolls-Royce plc, both in terms of money and estimated man hours.

The total value of contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence with Rolls-Royce plc in the first six months of the current financial year amounts to £100 million. However, much of our business with the company, such as RB199 engines for Tornado, is contracted for internationally. We expect our total business this year with the company to amount to about £500 million. It is not possible, I am afraid, to provide a reliable estimate of the man hours involved, though clearly Ministry of Defence business with Rolls-Royce plc sustains a substantial number of jobs.

I congratulate my hon. Friend both on the answer and on the fact that he has delivered it. In view of the substantial business from his Department to Rolls-Royce plc this year, on top of the substantial orders that it already holds on behalf of his Department, does he agree that the work force of Rolls-Royce plc need have no fears whatsoever as to their future employment, whether in state or private hands?

Those employees of Rolls-Royce plc whom I have met relish the idea of privatisation. They foresee themselves as shareholders and coming out from under Government control.

If Rolls-Royce plc is to continue to gain contracts, does the Minister agree that it will be necessary for it to maintain and even to expand its research and development? Will Government support be forthcoming for research and development if Rolls-Royce plc is privatised?

Yes. Government support will continue to be forthcoming for research and development in Rolls-Royce plc, whatever the ownership.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking up his post as Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. Will he confirm that the order for the Rolls-Royce RB199 engines for Tornado will include the follow-on order, the attrition order for the Royal Air Force, which was reduced by the sale of Tornados to Saudi Arabia? Will he assure me that it is included in that particular order? What is more, if it is not included in that order, I assure my hon. Friend that he will be under even greater pressure than he is now.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I assure him that we anticipate that the combination of our orders for the RB199, together with those from the Saudis, will take sales through into the mid-1990s.

Is the Minister aware that at my meeting with the trade union representatives at Rolls-Royce, Parkside—[Interruption.]

Order. Give the hon. Member a chance.

Is the Minister aware that at my meeting yesterday with the trade union representatives at Rolls-Royce, Parkside, in Coventry I was told that the proportion of workers opposed to privatisation was about 80 to 85 per cent.? Given the Prime Minister's oft-stated premise that defence is of the highest national priority, would not the privatisation of Rolls-Royce mean that money from the Defence Department would result not only in £500 million being spent on engines but in money being spent on the propping up and subsidisation of shareholders' dividends? How does that equate with the Prime Minister's statement that defence is a national priority?

We are convinced that the privatisation of Rolls-Royce will give the Ministry of Defence better value for money. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the national interest, but many defence suppliers are already in the private sector, and they play an equally important role.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to set up a register of arms sales.

No, Sir.

Is it not inconsistent of the Government to deny the public any opportunity of seeing in the House or outside, the applications made for arms sales, let alone knowing the criteria on which those arms exports are made, when only two years ago the Government's representative at the United Nations study on conventional arms argued for an international arms register? That was blocked by the Soviet Union. However, our allies, the United States, have a public debate in Congress before deciding major arms sales. Should the Government not be consistent both with their allies and with their other more private activities?

The Government consider that they have a great safeguard in that any defence equipment needs an Export of Goods (Control) Order before it can be shipped. We are satisfied that that provides the safeguard that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply to that question. Is he aware that it is official Labour party policy, with which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) presumably agrees, to disband the Defence Export Services Organisation as part of trying to bring the sales of all arms under closer political control? Is not such a policy wholy repugnant to the many thousands of people who work in the defence and arms industries in Britain, and to our allies in NATO, including Turkey, which, according to that policy, is classed, for some extraordinary reason, as a repressive nation?

It is remarkable that it is Labour party policy to disband the Defence Export Services Organisation, especially as it was set up by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Indeed, that was one of his better acts as Secretary of State for Defence. When it comes to defence export sales, we are talking about 120,000 jobs in Britain being at stake. We should not dismiss that lightly.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On the question of arms sales by British contractors, has he seen the file and appendices that I submitted during the recess to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on excess profits being made on defence contracts by Thorn EMI and Dowty-Rotol, and Aish and company? Has the hon. Gentleman examined that document, and when may I expect a ministerial reply setting out acceptance of the need to compensate whistleblowers on excess profits where they are being made?

I am aware of that document, and I know that it is being investigated. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can expect a reply before very long.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider his position? If we had an arms sales register, we could constantly remind the British people of the enormous contribution by the defence industries to our overall export drive. In particular, we could remind them of the record £5,000 million deal—the biggest export deal ever — which was secured by British Aerospace, this Government and our Prime Minister.

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but many of the deals are confidential as between the supplier and the recipient and some countries would not want all the deals that we make with them to be made public.

Will the Minister consider widening the suggestion? It would help taxpayers to know just how many contracts go to privatised firms which are not only not British, but do not provide jobs in any form in this country?

It remains an objective of the Ministry of Defence to get the best value for money. We cannot restrict ourselves to British suppliers if we are to do that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what controls Her Majesty's Government have over North Atlantic Treaty Organisation bases in the United Kingdom.

All bases in the United Kingdom that are used by other NATO allies remain in British ownership and their use is subject to the agreement of Her Majesty's Government.

Will the Minister publish a list of designated NATO bases in this country and the rules under which they are used by other armed forces? In the event of the United States or any other NATO country wishing to use a base to bomb another country without the approval of the British Government, would the British Government be able to stop it if they wished?

We publish in Hansard, in response to questions by hon. Members, details of bases that are occupied by the United States forces in this country. As was made quite clear, there can be no question of nuclear weapons being fired from British soil without the consent of the British Prime Minister. We have made it clear also, following the events in relation to Libya, that 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.

Has my right hon. Friend yet received a report on the ambush of a military convoy from a British base in the early hours of this morning? Is he aware that it will cause great concern among people in this country that such an event can take place? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he is satisfied that similar incidents can be prevented in future? Have the perpetrators been apprehended?

I have received a report on the events to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand that some arrests were made. I think my hon. Friend will recognise that the police and service men involved showed immense patience and restraint. I assure my hon. Friend that in very different international circumstances from those today we would have to take a different attitude towards the protection of nuclear weapons.

Did the Minister's original response also relate to United Kingdom territorial waters? Have there been any accidents with United States nuclear submarines in the past 12 months?

My previous answer also related to nuclear weapons fired from within British territorial waters.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would like Her Majesty's Government to have more control over the security surrounding NATO bases than was shown by half-baked local authorities such as Cambridgeshire, whose failure to enforce the law against the mob of CND and other odd-balls is as infuriating to the residents as it is dangerous to the security of the nation?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. He will be aware that, thanks to his and the Government's efforts, security at Greenham Common and at Molesworth is very much better today than it was some time ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the maintenance of the independent nuclear deterrent.

The independent strategic nuclear deterrent will remain vital to our security and to the security of our NATO partners for a long time to come. That is why we took the decision in 1980 to purchase the Trident system, which will provide an effective and credible deterrent well into the 21st century.

Whatever may or may not have been the options in the past, is it not a fact that if, like the leader of the Social Democratic party, one professes a belief in the maintenance of the independent nuclear deterrent, one can see no viable alternative to Trident capable of providing a successor to Polaris in time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the electorate will take a dim view of any electoral alliance which not only cannot agree whether there should be a successor or what that successor should be but, furthermore, rejects the only viable alternative? That sort of policy is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that any political party asking for support from the electorate must have a credible defence policy. It is clear that there is no way of replacing the Polaris system, which will be credible to any potential aggressor from the mid-1990s onwards, other than with the Trident system. I hope that all concerned will now come to terms with that fact and support it.

In what conceivable circumstances can our so-called independent nuclear deterrent be used?

We have made it clear that the possession of our independent nuclear deterrent should be available as a last-resort response in any future circumstance in which such a response by this country is needed. If that protection were abandoned, this country would be at the mercy of a vastly superior conventional attack. The hon. Gentleman and his party are backing a very dangerous defence policy in abandoning that protection.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties of the zero-zero option is that it does not include those Third World powers that have already developed or are developing atomic and nuclear weapons? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to defend ourselves from that potential danger, we need to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent?

We have made it perfectly clear that none of our weapons—whether nuclear or non-nuclear—will ever be used as a first-strike weapon and that, therefore, this country's adoption of the independent nuclear deterrent is a safeguard available to a British Government to use against any threat in the future. The necessity to have that response has been agreed policy between all Governments since the war, Labour as well as Conservative. I hope that that will be the case in future.

If, in the next five to six years, the Soviet Union and the United States were able to agree a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear missiles, will it be the policy of the Conservative party, if re-elected to office, to deploy a missile system which represents an eightfold increase in the present Polaris system, or are there circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to negotiate away Trident, and if so, what are they?

If the United States and the Soviet Union were to agree on such a thing, it would be more than the Liberal party has been able to do with its defence policy. If there were large reductions in strategic weapons of the size suggested by the hon. Gentleman—50 per cent. or so—the Government would be perfectly prepared to go along with the search for such reductions, but if it were anything further, we would require conventional and other weapons systems which are a threat to us to be taken into account.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to abandon Britain's nuclear deterrent and to expel American nuclear bases from this country would not only lead to the break-up of NATO and undermine our relationships with the United States but, in effect, would pose the greatest threat to peace in Europe since the war?

My hon. Friend is correct. There is no doubt that the destabilising effect of the possibilities described by my hon. Friend would be a grave danger to world peace and put us in greater danger than we are at the moment. It is only the certainty felt by any aggressor who thought of attacking this country that that would be the response, which it could not contemplate, that has kept us safe for more than 40 years. If the policy is allowed to continue, it will keep the peace for very many years into the future.

On the basis of the answers just given by the Secretary of State, are we now to assume that it is the Government's policy that in no circumstances will they be prepared to see the United Kingdom give up its deterrent and that, therefore, we will maintain a deterrent, no matter what the United States does, while there are strong conventional forces in the USSR? In fact, it is now a deterrent not against nuclear blackmail but against conventional forces.

We have always made it perfectly clear that in present circumstances we consider that the possession of an independent deterrent by this country is essential to our security. As I have said, that has been the view of Labour as well as Conservative Governments. That point should be pondered by the hon. Gentleman. We have always made it clear that if there were large reductions in strategic systems and no development of any new weapons as a threat to us we would be prepared to consider whether we would contribute to further reductions thereafter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the basic reasons behind the decision at which he has arrived and which he has made openly are the same as those behind the decision made by the Labour party—without telling the House of Commons — to go for Chevaline and update the deterrent? Are not the arguments precisely the same, except that we are deciding openly and making the announcement frankly to the whole country?

My hon. and learned Friend may well be right, although, of course, I am not privy to the inner secrets of previous Labour Governments. I certainly agree with my hon. and learned Friend and the implication of his comments, which is that if the Labour party thinks that it is safe to embark upon a policy of abandoning the nuclear deterrent and throwing out our American allies with their NATO nuclear bases in this country, it is taking an extremely dangerous step which will make war more likely, not less so.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the replacement of the Royal Navy's amphibious ships.

Good progress is being made in our examination of the way ahead for our amphibious capacity and my right hon. Friend will make an announcement before the end of the year.

Will the Minister ensure that there is no further slippage in the placement of these orders? Will he also ensure that none of these are sacrificed to pay for the Trident programme?

At present we are not talking about orders, but are considering the whole question of replacing our present capacity.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the foothills of immortality. Does he agree that it is self-evidently true that we can no longer retain a 50-ship fleet? What steps are his Department taking to rethink the tasks and deployment of a future greatly reduced Royal Navy?

We do not anticipate that the Royal Navy will be reduced to the extent to which my hon. Friend refers. I have every confidence that we shall be able to maintain a 50-ship fleet.

I welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement to his new responsibility. Can he be more specific as to what his colleague will be telling us by the end of the year? Will it be just another piece of delaying tactics about ordering? Will we enter the year 1987–88 before we hear anything positive about amphibious craft orders, or will there be further delaying tactics while we have to pay the price of Trident?

I thank he hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I cannot anticipate the statement, but when it comes it will be quite definitive about what we intend to do. It will not be a delaying tactic.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many road accidents have occurred in the county of Leicestershire involving military vehicles during the last 12 months.

My Department maintains statistics centrally on road traffic accidents involving military vehicles by parent unit and not by county. The information by county could be provided only by checking with every unit in the country.

In that case, will the Minister tell the House how many accidents have occurred in the country during the past year involving military vehicles, and in how many of those cases the vehicles were carrying nuclear weapons?

As regards the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, for security reasons we cannot depart from the principles followed for many years by successive Labour and Conservative Governments and release information on the arrangements governing the movement of nuclear weapons. As regards the information he requested about accidents involving military vehicles, the answer is that in the year ended 31 March 1986 there were five fatalities involving military vehicles.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a few days ago a military convoy allegedly carrying nuclear weapons heading in the direction of Leicestershire passed through St. Albans, thereby breaching the lorry ban zone covering that city? In view of the fact that our noble Friend in another place has previously apologised for a similar incursion into the lorry ban zone, will he investigate the incident and seek to ensure that it does not occur again?

As I have already said, and as I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, we do not comment on the movement of nuclear weapons. As regards any infringement of road traffic regulations, I would be glad to look into any allegation concerning military convoys or military vehicles and write to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints his Department has received concerning low-flying F111 aircraft during the past year.

Records are not maintained in the precise form requested, but 88 complaints and inquiries were received in the Ministry of Defence between November 1985 and October 1986 relating to aircraft from stations in Great Britain where United States Air Force F111 is are based.

Bearing in mind the number of such complaints, will the Minister tell us what contribution the United Kingdom Government are making to the NATO working party on aircraft noise in modern society? Will he assure the House that the Government will not prevent the development within NATO of the kinds of standards the West Germans insist on, which apply to West German aircraft and aircraft operating over West Germany?

The regulations governing low-flying in Germany are different from those that apply in this country. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the German Government restrict low flying to specific areas. Since 1979, following an initiative by the then Labour Government, which we have followed ever since, we do not restrict low-flying aircraft to any specific areas. We allow them to fly anywhere in the country, with the exception of built-up areas, civil air traffic control zones and over most hospitals.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of this country would rather have the occasional low-flying plane, knowing that every such plane is a friend and is intent upon the proper defence of this country, than no effective allied deterrent in the sky?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. There is a great need for low-flying training in the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force, because the perceived threat involves the training of our pilots and American pilots in the techniques of low flying.

Is the Minister aware that every time a fighter aircraft crashes killing the crew, such as the German fighter that crashed in Northumberland only last week, it instils great fear in the countryside community of this country? Could we do more of the low-flying training of our pilots, which is obviously necessary, in much more sparsely populated areas of countries overseas?

Our aircraft are required in Britain and western Europe. Therefore, we are severely constrained as to where the aircraft can train regularly. There has been only one civilian fatality—one too many—in the past 10 years involving low-flying aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to disperse the civilian work force of his Department from the south to the north of England.

As the House is aware, we are constantly searching for opportunities to secure a more even spread of defence employment across the regions. However, all proposals will need to stand on their economic and operational merits.

I add my congratulations to those of others to my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box. However, having heard his answer, I must ask for how much longer the melting pot is going to be melted before somebody recognises that there is a north of England, especially south Teesside. Langbaurgh especially comes to mind. We would like defence work in that area.

We are well aware that there is a north of England and that there is a Scotland as well. In 1979 we announced that 1,400 jobs would be transferred to Glasgow, and 1,330 of those have gone and have resulted in 1,000 jobs being recruited locally. We are very mindful of the needs of the north-east, and the representations made by my hon. Friend will be taken into account.

Is the Minister aware that nothing exposes the Government's hypocrisy concerning unemployment in the north more than their failure to transfer Civil Service jobs to the region? Is the Minister aware that since 1979, when the Government came to power, not a single Civil Service job has been transferred, in spite of the recommendations of the Hardman report? Will he set an example by acceding to the request of his hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and transferring defence jobs to the region?

We are well aware of the needs of the north-east and we are looking all the time at what jobs can be moved. I hope that we will be able to do something to satisfy the hon. Gentleman before long.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a sensible compromise would be to centralise all the facilities in the midlands, especially in Leicester, where we have the Army pay and records office? Many millions of pounds could be saved annually by centralising that facility.

We shall certainly take my hon. Friend's representations to heart, but I would prefer to write to him about that.

Will the Minister say how many jobs have been lost in the north in Army bases and elsewhere as a result of the MOD privatising many jobs?

When privatisation takes place it normally results in a certain number of jobs being replaced by others, so although they are lost in the Civil Service, they are not lost to the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-British civilians are employed by his Department.

There are 168,000 civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom and about 30,000 locally engaged civilians overseas. Information is not held centrally as to how many are non-British and it would be prohibitively expensive to collect it.

Bearing in mind the great cost of unemployment to British taxpayers, albeit a cost which arises in a Department different from that in which my hon. Friend has recently and happily assumed responsibilities, can he assure the House that the most careful consideration is given, whenever a non-British citizen is appointed, to the alternative of appointing a British citizen, from whatever part of the United Kingdom?

The qualifications for appointments within the United Kingdom are that people should have been in this country for a long time, so it is only in exceptional circumstances that foreigners are employed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November.

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.

Has the Prime Minister seen today the report of the serious concern expressed in Europe and the United States of America, as well as throughout Latin America, at the unilateral announcement of a Falklands fisheries zone? As it is in our interests to get an internationally accepted agreement on fisheries and to do nothing to undermine democracy in Argentina, will she think again about this hasty and ill-considered decision?

The decision was absolutely right. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have been trying through the Food and Agriculture Organisation to secure a multilateral agreement on fisheries with Argentina. We first took an initiative in April 1985, but it was delayed by Argentina. Eventually Argentina signed bilateral agreements which purported to regulate fishing in waters over which the Falklands are entitled to exercise jurisdiction. Faced with that, we took our action. It was correct arid, indeed, necessary to exercise jurisdiction over those waters.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most parents will regard the teachers' pay award of 16 per cent. as reasonable, generous and fair? Will she reassure the House that the Government will protect children from any further disruption of their schooling?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the offer made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is, as he said, fair, reasonable and, indeed, generous. Indeed, with the latest offer it would mean that Scottish teachers had had about a 30 per cent. increase in pay over the past two and a half years. Many parents would wish to have a similar increase, and they have every right to expect that their children will be properly and fully educated.

Will the Prime Minister condemn the manic efforts of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to suborn the BBC by his smears and menaces, or is he acting under her orders?

The matter raised with the BBC is a straightforward one of whether the BBC is honouring the terms of its charter and its licence and agreement which it signed after the charter some time in 1981. A complaint has been made to the BBC. It is not for us to discuss it, it is now for the BBC to reply.

The Prime Minister is incredible. Is she trying to say that her creature—which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster most definitely is—is acting in a straightforward fashion? Is this not the most tortuous attempt to try to intimidate the BBC because it is not manipulating the news in the way that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would like?

It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has read the submission, but from what he has said it does not seem that he has. If he has, he will have seen that it refers to the terms and conditions under which the BBC broadcasts, and a complaint has been made. It seems to me a matter of fact for the governors to consider. It is only they who can decide and reply to that complaint. It was a fairly measured complaint, which the right hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the submission.

I have read the submission. It is not a complaint, which is right; it is coercion, which is entirely wrong.

It is a matter for the governors, and only the governors, to see whether the charter, and the licence and the agreement have been honoured. It is not for us to have an argument on this matter. A complaint has been made and it is for the governors to reply.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November 1986.

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

May I remind my right hon. Friend that the people of Scotland are anxiously awaiting confirmation that the Queen's Speech next week will contain proposals for legislation to reform the thoroughly discredited and unfair rating system in Scotland? Can she reassure me that they will not be disappointed?

I know how anxiously Scotland awaits this legislation and I gladly give my hon. Friend the reassurance he requires.

In view of her earlier reply, can the right hon. Lady tell the House whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was complaining to the BBC, or was his complaint made solely in his role as chairman of the Conservative party? If so, how are the two roles distinguished? Surely the real issue is that the board of governors are responsible for the BBC and it is they who should now reply to the Conservative party, and the Government should distance themselves from Mr. Tebbit's other role, in which he does not act as a member of the Government?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct—my right hon. Friend was acting as chairman of the Conservative party.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is reported that teachers in Norwich are on strike today? Does she agree that this action by the teachers' unions is destroying support for the teachers' case and lowering the regard in which the teaching profession is held by right-thinking people in Britain?

Yes, I think that such action is utterly disgraceful and shows no regard whatsoever for the children who are in the care of the teachers. I believe that the offer that has been made is a very generous one and that most teachers would wish to accept it. I agree very much with my hon. Friend that if teachers wish to have their professional standards restored — that is our purpose — they should accept the offer and return to giving a full education to all our children.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November 1986.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Jarrow marchers arrived in London today to protest about unemployment and to defend their right to work? Is she also aware that these marchers have now been on the march for four weeks? With regard to last week's statement, does she really think that the marchers should lose their benefit because they are not available for employment?

Yes, of course I am aware of the march. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, unemployment benefit is paid to those who are genuinely available for work.

The right hon. Lady is cruel.

The statement that has been made is the response to the criticisms made by the Public Accounts Committee of the existing arrangements. The new questionnaire applies the law—

Heartless.

Order. The Prime Minister is giving an answer.

The new questionnaire applies the law as the Labour Government reaffirmed it in the Social Security Act 1975, which said:

"a day shall not be treated in relation to any person—

(i) as a day of unemployment unless on that day he is capable of work and he is, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to be available to be employed in employed earner's employment".

During her busy day yesterday, did my right hon. Friend have a chance to read the report in The Daily Telegraph about the extraordinary happenings on Manchester city council? Does she agree that a council which behaves in that thoroughly intolerable way deserves the sort of support—

Order. The Prime Minister can answer questions only on matters for which she has responsibility.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that two weeks ago the Employment Select Committee visited Japan, a country to which the Prime Minister would possibly refer as being very successful, where we were advised that inflation is now standing at zero, but in spite of that they paid a 4·7 per cent. wage increase this year? Is the Prime Minister aware that when we met the industrialists they advised us that they were borrowing money from the banks for industrial development at 41/8 per cent.—

Order. The same rules must apply. The Prime Minister can answer questions only on matters for which she is responsible.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November.

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

rose—

No.

On a point of order.

Order. I shall take points of order afterwards.

rose—

Order. I shall deal with that afterwards.

The Prime Minister will recall that when the decision was taken on the dual track to have cruise and Pershing in this country it was on the ground that it would force the Russians to the table and make them take out the SS20s. Now that the Russians under Secretary-General Gorbachev, and the Americans under President Reagan, have agreed that the SS20s and cruise and Pershings should go, why is she running to the United States to see President Reagan and saying that she did not really mean it and, please, can she keep those weapons here?

The matter of the intermediate nuclear forces has to be negotiated, as the hon. Member knows, in Geneva. That is the only place where agreement can be reached. Her Majesty's Government welcome the progress made on INF at Reykjavik. It is consistent with the long-standing Alliance position that INF must be dealt with on a global basis. A zero-zero solution in Europe with some long-range intermediate nuclear forces in Asia is acceptable provided that the disparity is not to great. It is also the well-known Alliance position that the problem of the short-range intermediate nuclear forces must also be addressed because they were put in the satellite countries in response to cruise and Pershing, which themselves were in response to the SS20. The whole thing must be thoroughly and properly worked out.

Will my right hon. Friend, during her very busy day, have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence about the Royal Air Force's need for an advanced early warning system? Will she accept that if that order is not placed with GEC Avionics and British Aerospace it will be a dreadful blow for Britain's manufacturing industry, a further blow for unemployment and a kick in the teeth for British technology?

Of course one would wish orders to go to Britain. They have to be won on merit, and the important thing is whether the services which that aircraft and early warning system provide are acceptable on the ground of competence to the Royal Air Force and all the forces who use it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether, in the course of her busy involvement in the pressurising of the BBC by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, she found time to read the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the standards of conduct in public life?

I have, I believe, sufficiently answered the hon. Gentleman's question.

rose—

Order. To forestall any possible points of order, I should tell the House that I stopped the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) from asking a question about what went on in the Manchester city council — [Interruption.] The Prime Minister is not responsible. I must apply the rules equally to both sides of the House.

rose—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading in Hansard what he said, I think he will see that had he framed his question in a rather different way it would have been in order.

rose—

Order. From all that I heard, he was saying about Japan very much the same kind of thing as the hon. Member for Gillingham was saying about Manchester.

rose—

Order. There has been a tendency in recent days for the Prime Minister to be asked questions on matters for which she is not responsible. I think we ought to get back to the traditional rules.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All questions to the Prime Minister are prefaced, to a greater of lesser extent, by paving material in order to put the question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) was precisely paving the way to ask a question about Britain's economic performance compared with that of Japan, which the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, is perfectly capable of answering, and for which she is responsible.

rose—

Order. Let me forestall all this. I shall read carefully what the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) said, and, indeed, what the hon. Member for Gillingham said, although my recollection is that in prefacing his question the hon. Member said "Did the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day yesterday consider …" Allow me to reflect on the matter. I am simply telling the House that I must apply the same rules to both sides and that we should get back to the position of asking the Prime Minister about matters for which she has direct responsibility.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has sought to do no more and no less than to encourage the BBC to be impartial—

Order. That seems the sort of question that might well be asked of a Minister, but not of me.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask for your guidance on the rights of Back Benchers in the House. It arises specifically from the next item, a private notice question about unemployment, an issue which any Opposition Member can and does raise any day of the week. I put in an application this morning to ask you about—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he put in an application to me for a private notice question he must not raise the matter in the House.

I am asking for legitimate guidance from you, Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Why is it that an issue of great importance to the integrity of Britain, about whether someone is sent abroad in a crate, whether to Israel or to Nigeria, is not allowed while a private notice question about unemployment, which can be asked at any time, is in order? Why are Back Benchers ignored while matters coming from the Front Bench are allowed?

Order. That is a very unworthy statement by the hon. Gentleman, who well knows that I treat the Front Benches and the Back Benches with an equal and even hand. The hon. Gentleman has not even heard the private notice question.

Answer the question.

rose—

I cannot answer a question about the chairman of the Conservative party. That is what the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) asked about.

Yes, but I did not.

rose—

rose—

rose—

I will call Mr. Eastham first.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. May I seek clarification? I asked the Prime Minister to make some comparisons between the Japanese economy and the disastrous British economy, but you ruled me out of order and did not give me an opportunity to pose my question. What is the reason for such conduct?

I have explained that to the hon. Gentleman. I have said that I will read carefully in Hansard what he said. I did not hear him preface his remarks with, "In the course of her busy day" or anything like that. May I say to the House that if, on any day, I feel that I have been unfair to any hon. Member, I have ways of putting that straight, and I always do so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, have you noticed that there are 139 questions down today to the Prime Minister? My right hon. Friend is in great demand to answer questions on every subject under the sun, and she does it very well. May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider, instead of answering questions for a quarter of an hour twice a week, answering them for half a day in order to get rid of the backlog.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

We have a busy day ahead of us, but I will take it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This, oddly enough, is a genuine point of order. You made some comments a little earlier drawing to the attention of the House the fact that questions to the Prime Minister should have some relevance to her responsibilities. Of course, this House does not expect any longer any real answers from the Prime Minister. Would it not test the subtlety of Members of the House if you were to reinstitute the former requirement, which I think has been abandoned under your Speakership, that the questions should be prefaced by some relevance to her activities on the day on which the question is put? That old practice has increasingly been abandoned and it would be healthy for the skills of the House and a sensible return to old practice if there were a requirement to preface the question by considering today whatever the relevance of the question is.

That is exactly the point that I was seeking to make. The hon. Gentleman makes it clearly for me and I thank him.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I try to be helpful over this matter of Prime Minister's questions? The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a fair point about paving questions, and we all know that occasionally some of us become a little long-winded in putting our paving questions. In these days of modern technology, might not a device be put to work to help you, Mr. Speaker, of the sort that is used at Wimbledon that causes bells to ring? If Members cannot get their paving questions out in the first 100 words, a bell would ring and you, Mr. Speaker, would tell them to sit down.

I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether, to help us phrase our questions correctly, you could advise us how to distinguish between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster requesting the BBC to act impartially and fairly and the chairman of the Conservative party sending a bullying letter.

Order. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his long experience, I am in no way responsible to the chairmen of political parties. I am responsible, however, for Ministers in this place when they come to the Dispatch Box.

rose—

If the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order I shall take it, but it must be a point of order and not a spoof.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I misled you earlier, but I was going on to say, had I been given the chance to do so, that earlier this afternoon the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), with great venom, referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by his ordinary name in making a cheap point about broadcasting. Surely we are to return to the niceties of this place.

Order. I judged that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was referring to the Minister in his capacity as chairman of a party and not as a Member of the House.