asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from trades unions about his impending decision on the Nimrod airborne early warning project; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the number of jobs which would be secured in the United Kingdom by the purchase of the General Electric Company Avionics Nimrod airborne early warning system.

The only recent representatives that we have received have been from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. My noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement met a delegation from that body on 28 November. It is for the companies concerned to decide how many people to employ on Nimrod AEW work.

I understand that we want the very best that we can get for the Royal Air Force, but will the Minister take into account the fact that many skilled British jobs are in jeopardy and that our defence system throughout the world will be watched very closely as a result of this decision? British electronics exports are also involved. It is an important problem, we are all watching it closely, and I hope that Ministers are doing much the same.

I very much take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I point out to him that we are in the final stages of this competition and I should prefer not to comment today upon the relative merits of the two remaining contenders.

I understand my hon. Friend's reticence, but does he not agree that Nimrod is overwhelmingly better for British jobs, better on cost, and better for British exports and that it is also better for European procurement? Does he not realise the gravity of the decision that is being taken?

I think that my hon. Friend is trying to draw me on my original comments. All I would say is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence hopes to make an announcement before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

I appreciate that the Minister does not wish to comment on the merits of the systems, but I wish to elicit some factual information from him. It is said that Boeing has offered a 130 per cent. offset. What would be the quality of those jobs? Would they be involved in high technology?

The quality of the offset that is being offered by Boeing is something into which we are looking very closely.

Is my hon. Friend able to reassure the House that the 130 per cent. offset that has been offered by Boeing is more than just opportunities to tender and represents real contracts, and that the work involved would be high technology work, not just tin bashing?

I have already said that we are looking very much into the quality of what has been offered by Boeing. This is part of our consideration.

Will the Minister take into account the fact that many press reports have said that the Government have already made up their mind to buy Boeing? Will he bear in mind that the Boeing system is old-fashioned, and that if we buy Nimrod we will be buying not only British jobs but a system for the future which has export potential as well?

I beg the hon. Gentleman not to believe what he reads in the papers. No final decision on this has yet been made.

Does my hon. Friend agree that unless there are some clear and insoluable operational problems with the Nimrod system, it would be madness to give away British industry's lead in this important defence technology, and crazy to give the Boeing Aircraft Company a monopoly in yet another sector of aerospace?

We have to take into account the requirements of the RAF and value for money, and, as I say, no final decision has yet been made.

Outside the publicity and propaganda, will the Minister take it from me that the problem of clutter in receiving by this aircraft has now gone and that it can now clearly identify each target? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement to the House about the success of the mission that he went on in Nimrod?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will refer to these matters when he makes an announcement to the House before the Christmas recess.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends very much support Nimrod and GEC Avionics? Before a final decision is made will he ensure that his right hon. Friend is aware of the high technology of the latest GEC mark Nimrod, that many jobs are involved, and that the future of British technology in aerospace and in avionics is very much at stake and is based on the decision which he and his colleagues are to take?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard every word that my hon. Friend has said and will take these matters into account before making a final decision.

We appreciate that the Under-Secretary dare not comment on the merits of the two systems, but will he confirm that his right hon. Friend has commented, because on 5 December, on the "News at Ten" programme, he said that both systems, that is the British Nimrod and the American AWACs, now work? Does it not follow from that that there is no case for buying American, and every good and valid case for buying British?

That does not follow. What does follow is that we still have many different assessments to make of the different tenders, and no final decision has yet been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions are recorded between Mr. Ian Curteis and his Department concerning the factual accuracy of his Falklands war play.

Mr. Ian Curteis visited the Ministry of Defence on 5 March and discussed the commission that he had from the BBC to write a play on the Falklands war. On 3 April he visited the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief, Fleet at Northwood, where he was shown around the headquarters and the operations room used during the war.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree, or will he confirm, that the BBC made no efforts to ascertain the accuracy or lack of it of Mr. Curteis's play, and that in banning it the BBC has shown itself to be hypocritical, in that it allows various things to go out which are true or untrue, and has said that if Mr. Curteis had been accurate and gone to the Ministry of Defence and checked the facts it would not have banned the play? The BBC would would have allowed the play to go out if he had altered and falsified the facts. In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend say whether he will still make available to the BBC all the facts appertaining to Mr. Curteis's play, so that it can go out on schedule?

There were two very limited contacts between Mr. Ian Curteis and my Department. I am not privy to the totality of what passed between Mr. Curteis and the BBC, and for that reason I am not able to comment further on that.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of the authors or producers of the innumberable other plays and programmes which have been produced denigrating the British performance in the Falklands took the trouble to visit the Ministry of Defence and check their facts? Will he also comment on the fact that they were not banned?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I think that there were other occasions on which people writing about the Falklands war consulted my Department. I also note that other producers of television material, and that sort of thing, have found a way of getting access to the television media. My hon. Friend will be aware that although the BBC has apparently banned this play, Anglia Television has expressed interest in it and many of us will be happy to see that play being made public on Anglia Television.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present position regarding his proposals to introduce commercial management into the royal dockyards; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consultations have taken place with the relevant trade unions concerning the Government's plan for commercial management of the dockyards.

As I announced on 4 December, we have begun the final stages of consultation over the future management arrangements for the royal dockyards. To this end, we have released details for the contract which could be signed with our preferred contractor, Babcock Thorn, and responded in full to the trade union paper which I received on 24 November. I have placed a copy of my paper in the Library.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is prepared genuinely to consider the possibility of the alternative options for Devonport, such as either a trading fund or a Government-owned plc, in his consultations with the trade unions, so that the consulations will not be confined to details relating to his predecessor's preferred option of agency management?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I assure him that I intend the consultation process to be as full as it possibly can be. Of course, it is open to the unions to raise with me any aspect of the matter at any point in the consultations.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that, by making an announcement with regard to Babcock Thorn, he has acted with the utmost insensitivity and doubtful legality? If, by doing that, he has excluded some of the options for Rosyth, which the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) has mentioned, what substance does he think will be given to any future consulations that he has with trade unionists from Rosyth?

The hon. Gentleman has got this matter wrong. The other side of the coin, when we have maximum consultation, is that all those concerned require maximum information in order to give their views and to be properly consulted. I would rightly have been criticised if I had seen the consultation process as continuing without giving the unions an opportunity to comment on what is, I think, our preferred solution. I have made it clear to them that I have not taken a final decision and that all their views will be taken into account before I do.

What is the point of promising to consult the work force of Rosyth when Babcock Thorn, the preferred contractor, says that it has already agreed what amounts to a 1,000-page contract with the Ministry of Defence? Will the Secretary of State tell us the truth? How many compulsory redundancies have been discussed with Babcok Thorn? Will he deny the extraordinary statement by Babcok Thorn this morning that not just HMS Conqueror but all hunter-killer work is to be moved from Rosyth, with hundreds more jobs at risk?

Again, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has properly read the statements that have been made. He expects his friends in the trade unions concerned to consult me. If I do not give them information as to what the preferred course might be, I do not know how they could consult about somthing when they would not know what they were consulting about. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to take me to task if I had not done that. He would have accused me of keeping them in the dark.

Is the Secretary of State, by saying that he hopes to announce the third contractor shortly for Devonport dockyard, merely saying that he is no longer open to persuasion about a Government-owned plc or a trading fund, that there is no genuine consultation and that the consultation has been a sham throughout the last few years?

I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's question, because what he and his hon. Friends are now suggesting is that the consultation process would be better if I were to withold some of the relevant information from the trade unions before I consult them. That is not a sensible proposition. It surprises me that the right hon. Gentleman should espouse that idea.

The House is aware that the Secretary of State has not denied the substance of the Babcock Thorn statement. What is more, it is now common knowledge that the man who is to run the dockyard for Babcock and Thorn has been replaced by Babcock Power in Scotland. Is not this whole strategy and the failure to make any honest commitment to the House or confirm the numbers of redundancies evidence that the contractorisation strategy is in ruins and that the Navy is once again being made to pay for defence cuts?

The hon. Gentleman is going a bit over the top. I have not seen the statement that was made by Babcock today, so I cannot comment upon whatever it is. With regard to the submarine refit programme, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing new and nothing surprising in the announcement about HMS Conqueror. It was a perfectly normal adjustment of programme to make sure that the work goes to the most appropriate place in the dockyard system where there is the capacity to deal with it. The question of jobs, one way or another, is not affected plus or minus by the contractorisation process. What it is affected by is the work load, and that is common to all solutions.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the introduction of ethnic monitoring in the Army.

Arrangements are well in hand for the Army, in common with the other services, to introduce ethnic monitoring as outlined in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on 5 November, at column 434.

I welcome the decision to introduce monitoring next April, but how does the Minister answer the criticism that it will not cover possible discrimination against black soldiers as regards promotion? Secondly, will it cover instances when potential soldiers apply, for example, to the Brigade of Guards, and are diverted by the Army recruiting office to another regiment? Under which regiment will they then be recorded?

Promotion of those in the armed services is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on the basis of merit, aptitude and motivation. There are two reasons why monitoring is not to be introduced for those in service. First, it is considered unnecessary, because no examples are known to the Ministry of Defence of racial discrimination. If there are, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw them to our attention. Secondly, we consider it inappropriate, because the introduction of monitoring in the armed services for those in service would be divisive.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the basis for promotion in the armed forces must continue to be ability, success rate on military courses, and so on, and that in no way should the armed forces be seen to discriminate in favour of black people against those who are most able and worthy of promotion?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree very much with him. Indeed, I believe that black members of the armed forces would very much resent any implication that their promotion was other than by merit alone.

Some members of the ethnic minorities serving in the SAS helped to organise the shipment of submarine lifting gear from Scotland to Libya. Will the Minister explain their role? Was that to make amends for the bombing of Libyan cities, or will the hon. Gentleman say simply that it is a state secret?

Order. That is a bit wide of ethnic monitoring.

Will my hon. Friend monitor carefully the excellent performance of the Gurkha Rifles and assure the House that there will be no reduction in the number of Gurkha battalions, which have provided such an excellent service to the Crown over the years?

I agree very much with my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Gurkha forces currently serving in Hong Kong and elsewhere. I assure him that the Gurkhas have a long-term and secure future in the British Army.

Can the Under-Secretary inform the House how many commissioned officers in the forces are of African, Caribbean or Asian origin? Why are people of that origin in the British Army assumed to lack merit, aptitude and motivation, because there are so few of them in the commissiond ranks? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many people in the minority communities will not feel that they are fully accepted as British citizens until they are given a commensurate place in the protection of these islands, on merit, aptitude and motivation, and not on the ground of discrimination, from which many feel they suffer?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Commission for Racial Equality has recommended that the only correct way to monitor those of different ethnic backgrounds in the armed services is on the basis of self-classification, and not by myself or anyone else in the Ministry of Defence going out and counting members of individual units. I have said that we have no intention of introducing ethnic monitoring for those in service.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of maintaining a military presence in the south Atlantic; and if he anticipates further reducing forces on the Falkland Islands.

In the last financial year, the additional cost to the defence budget of establishing and maintaining the Falklands garrison is estimated to have been £397 million. The planned provision for 1986-87 amounts to £234 million and that for 1987–88 is £140 million. Force levels in the Falklands, now and in the future, reflect the continuing need for a military presence sufficient to deter aggression and to defend the islands against attack.

I accept in particular the second point to which my right hon. Friend drew attention, but does he agree that the recent development of the air strip, with its attendant possibility of reinforcing the garrison from the United Kingdom rather more quickly than was the case before, might lead to the possibility of our having to maintain a smaller garrison? Does he have any thoughts on whether that is likely in the near future, and if so, can he tell us whether there is the possibility of a reduction in costs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have always said that giving ourselves a very much greater ability to reinforce the Falkland Islands quickly enabled us to take a more flexible view of the garrison levels. We do not, for reasons which I am sure he and the rest of the House will understand, go into details about the garrison levels, but my hon. Friend will agree that the figures that I mentioned in my answer to him make it clear that we will achieve the discharge of our defence responsibilities to the Falklands during the next few years at significantly less cost than hitherto.

Will the Ministry of Defence participate in preparations for a royal visit to the Falklands in the spring of 1987?

I have no comment to make on any royal visit to the Falklands.

Does my right hon. Friend's reply not show that there will be a rapid, progressive and gratifying fall in costs, and does the Ministry of Defence know of any better all-services training area than the Falkland Islands?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Falkland Islands provide some very good training opportunities. I am sure that he and the rest of the House will welcome the fact that the additional financial cost of the Falklands will halve over the next three years.

Will the Minister say what assessment has been made, and what plans have been laid, for the reported Argentine nuclear capability?

I have no comments to make on that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever the costs may be, they are well worth it, because there is an important point of principle at stake?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The construction of the airfield has been a very cost-effective use of taxpayers' money for defence purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to arrive at a decision on the size and timing of further orders for follow-on type 23 frigates.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future frigate orders.

Orders for three follow-on type 23 frigates were placed earlier this year. Decisions on orders for further follow-on type 23 frigates will be taken when appropriate.

The Secretary of State must be aware that the orders that he has mentioned relate to last year rather than to this. Is he not aware that if further orders await priorities and availability of resources, Conservative Members will need to know, as my colleagues certainly know, that if the Nott tendency still lingers in the Ministry of Defence, the Secretary of State will not fulfil his objective of a proper age structure for a 50-ship surface fleet by the 1990s, which is only three years away?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this year we have already placed three orders for frigates. It remains my intention to maintain a force level of about 50 frigates and destroyers, but the number of frigates to be ordered in any one year will continue to depend upon the resources available.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the appropriate time is now? We need those orders now to go into the 1990s with a 50-warship Navy. The constant procrastination by the Ministry of Defence is not good enough when workers are ready to build the ships and seamen are waiting for the opportunity to sail in them. The time is now.

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be more grateful than that for the three large orders that we have placed this year. The hon. Gentleman welcomed them when they were placed. As for keeping the 50-frigate Navy going and the new orders required to do that, we must weigh up the life of the frigates and the refit cycle and all the rest of it. That must be done in the context of the availability of resources at the time.

My right hon. Friend will realise that Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton, which for many years has been a loyal servant to the Government in warship construction, is in desperate plight. As it has recently been privatised, can my right hon. Friend say whether any orders may come to Vosper Thornycroft in the dim and distant future? I am thinking not only of type 23 but of the single role minehunter.

Some time ago I met some of the management of Vosper Thornycroft to discuss the company's problems. I assure my hon. Friend that this is an important defence contractor. It is the lead yard for single-role minehunters, and we shall watch its problems carefully.

Will my right hon. Friend take on board the fact that Harland and Wolff will be given additional subsidies which Swan Hunter will not receive and that this must be borne in mind when making decisions to place orders for type 23s?

I very much take my hon. Friend's point. I assure him that the extra auditing and monitoring procedures which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced when the order for the first AOR was placed at Harland and Wolff will be carefully adhered to, so that when comparisons are made between Harland and Wolff or any other nationalised concern and the private sector it can be done on a fair basis.

Will the Secretary of State admit to being economical with the truth? Would not a more candid reply be that the order for the type 23 02 has been placed with Swan Hunter, that 03 and 05 have been placed with Yarrow, that type 23 04, 06 and 07 have been dropped from the programme altogether, and that there will be no frigate orders next year?

The hon. Gentleman of all people should be more pleased than he appears to be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—because Swan Hunter in his constituency has been given a special non-competitive order for type 23 02 and has also been given the offer of bidding for the second AOR ship when that comes along. Many other shipyards in the United Kingdom would like to be as well treated as Swan Hunter has been, and the hon. Gentleman should have said that.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that Yarrow on Clydeside, where much of the type 23 frigate development work has been undertaken, is one of the most modern and efficient yards in the world? Will he take this opportunity to remind the House that, following his announcement in the summer of two frigates for Yarrow, it has engaged in a multi-million pound covered development at the yard to build frigates on a more competitive and productive basis?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Yarrow is a very important defence contractor. It is the lead yard for type 23 frigates, which will be the backbone of the 50-frigate Navy that we intend to keep.

What is the likelihood of one type 23 frigate being deployed in support of the two fishing vessels which will police the Falkland Islands fishery conservation zone? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those two aging stern trawlers will have to be replaced by fisheries protection vessels of the sort employed in United Kingdom waters?

We do not normally comment on operational matters, but I can safely say that whatever tasks the Royal Navy is asked to perform in the Falklands, we shall try to use the most suitable ships available for the task. The hon. Gentleman will realise that, as tasks develop, we may have to change the equipment available to deal with them, but we are ready to do that if necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his assessment of the effectiveness of helicopters as tank-killers in the 1990s.

We believe that the attack helicopter will continue to constitute an essential component of a balanced anti-armour capability in the 1990s.

Given the speed of concentration of helicopters, their ability to operate over their own territory, modern techniques of surveillance and the power and accuracy of modern missiles, is not the concept of the use of the tank in the offensive role really a romantic reject that should go out with the concept of using horses?

There are many different weapons systems that can be used in an anti-tank capability and the helicopter is merely one of them.

Has the Minister seen the study that states that British forces on the central front in Europe are about 100 helicopters light of their requirements in terms of attack tank killing and the deployment of reserves? Is he aware of the special role that the helicopter has to play in terms of a force multiplier, given the disposal of forces on the central front? Does he realise that further delay or fudging of the decision on helicopter procurement will not only cause terrible damage to Westland but will weaken our forces?

The Ministry is giving serious consideration to our future requirements for helicopters and will be making an announcement on that in the new year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Army—and it is the Army that is mainly at issue here—has revised its view about helicopters within the past 18 months? As helicopters have been in service since the last world war, will Ministers oversee any advice that they receive with good common sense?

The Army very properly wanted to be sure that the requirements stated would satisfy its needs in the light of an emerging threat. It would have been improper to proceed with the old requirements when new information had come to light.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated total cost of Trident; and what progress is being made in Scotland in the provision of facilities for this weapons system.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 11 March 1986, the latest estimate for Trident is £9,869 million at average 1985–86 prices. Satisfactory progress is being maintained by all elements of the Trident programme for its introduction into service in the mid-1990s.

Is the Minister aware that there is an enormous amount of opposition to the programme, particularly in Scotland? How can the Minister or his right hon. Friend claim that Trident is an independent British nuclear deterrent when the Prime Minister has to go crawling to America to ask a doddering President whether he will promise to deliver—and that lame duck President can deliver nothing?

I am surprised to hear from the hon. Gentleman that there is so much opposition to the Trident programme in Scotland, because it is providing a large number of jobs. Our independent deterrent is providing, at present, about 4,500 jobs in maintenance, and construction work on the Clyde involves 2,000 to 2,500 jobs, half of which are filled by residents from the Dumbarton district. If we consider the whole of north England and Scotland, the effect of the programme on employment is very dramatic. I have the feeling that the Opposition are rather cavalier in their attitude to employment in those areas, yet we are always being told about the high unemployment levels there.

When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to sign the contract for Trident 2? Can he also give us some idea of the number of jobs that that will secure?

The manufacture of HMS Vanguard is securing 4,000 jobs at Barrow and 5,000 jobs elsewhere. We envisage that that employment level will rise considerably. In response to my hon. Friend's question about placing the contract for the next Trident, I can say that we will do that some time early next year.

Will the Minister spare us the hypocrisy about Trident jobs and recognise that every £1 million spent on Trident facilities on Clydeside would create many more jobs if it was invested in socially useful jobs in the construction industry, the Health Service or education? Will he also recognise that thousands of millions of pounds are being spent on American technology and American jobs, instead of being spent in this country?

There is no doubt that the prime purpose of the Trident programme is not to create jobs. On the other hand, I wonder whether the people who are in jobs affected by the Trident programme have been consulted by Opposition Members, who are so keen to abolish their jobs.

Will my hon. Friend confirm the simple truth that, without Trident, there is no effective defence of the nation?

There is no doubt whatever in my mind that our independent nuclear deterrent must form the backbone of our defence, and it is critical that we have it.

A Government who have trebled unemployment since 1979 have no business to talk about other people being cavalier about jobs—[interruption]

Order. These are defence questions.

I thank the House for that reception. It is deeply gratifying. As for the estimate of the cost of Trident, can the Under-Secretary of State confirm again that about £4.5 billion out of the £9.8 billion will be spent in the United States and, no doubt, create jobs in the American armaments industry? Can he also confirm that for every 1 cent that the pound falls against the dollar, another £25 million goes on the cost of Trident?

And the other way around.

It will not be the other way around.

The right hon. Gentleman is just as daft as his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Order. This takes a lot of time out of questions.

Does the arrangement with the United States Government contain an exchange rate protection clause, or is it an open-ended commitment in respect of the value of the pound and the dollar?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the exchange rate that is applicable to calculating the cost of Trident is taken at the end of June of the previous year, so we are operating on an exchange rate of $1·28 to the pound. When it is revalued, as we expect in the new year, it will be $1·50, which was the rate at the end of June this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is carrying naiveté to the point of gross irresponsibility for the Leader of the Opposition to try to square his commitment to the cancellation of Trident and removal of American bases from Britain with his assertion that that need not affect the Americans' commitment to NATO?

Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is threatening the cornerstone of the NATO Alliance by getting rid of our independent deterrent. That stance holds great dangers for the future of the country's defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contacts his Department has had with Iranian officials in the past three years concerning infrastructure contracts and military spare parts.

A number of meetings took place in 1984. There have been none since then.

As meetings took place on 20 and 31 October this year between representatives of International Military Sales, a company which is wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence, and Iranian officials, how does that fact square with the Minister's answer and the Prime Minister's statement that a no arms sales policy had been pursued scrupulously and consistently? Will the Minister say what took place during those meetings on 20 and 31 October?

The hon. Gentleman's question asked about contacts that my Department had with Iranian officials. IMS is controlled by the Department, but it operates independently. It has been concerned merely with contracts that existed before the revolution. It has been negotiating about them. It has conducted no arms sales since the revolution.

Can my hon. Friend confirm—I hope he can—that the contacts have not led to any arms sales to Iran in contravention of our policies, especially if we are not prepared to sell to the Israelis defensive clothing against chemical weapons?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There have been no new sales of equipment by IMS. It has been concerned only with existing contracts and deliveries in respect of them.

What has been delivered, even in retrospective contracts? Does it not break the spirit of what the Prime Minister said, if not the facts of the situation? We should have stopped all deliveries, whether or not the contracts were pre-Shah.

Under the existing contracts, anything sold has been of a non-lethal nature.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the long-term future of the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall, Twickenham.

My right hon. Friend expects to make a decision soon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the finest Army bands, whose high standards of excellence are the envy of the world, are trained at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall, Twickenham? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to take fully into account not only the views of the 164 right hon. and hon. Friends who have signed the early-day motion, but the opinion of the other place, the Army, the arts world and the 18,679 people who have signed petitions?

Yes, I can confirm that the Government will take those into account.

Order. Before I call upon the Lord Privy seal to answer Prime Minister's Questons, may I remind the House that the questions must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

During the course of his busy day will my right hon. Friend convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy our congratulations on the successful privatisation of British Gas, which has brought about a most welcome extension of share ownership in Britain? I also ask my right hon. Friend to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to reflect upon the fact that the percentage of people in this country who now own British Gas shares is considerably higher than the percentage of people in America who know the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

I will certainly convey the second point raised by my hon. Friend. With regard to his point of substance, I shall certainly convey that to my right hon. Friend. I agree with him that the remarkably successful flotation of British Gas and the premium it has secured demonstrates not only the confidence of the British people in the future of gas but their belief that British Gas has an assured future within private ownership.

May I first invite the right hon. Gentleman to join me in condemning the attempt in the European Parliament this morning to impair free speech, especially as the individual concerned has ample opportunity to make his case in two Parliaments?

I have no reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman, whose return I very much welcome, is aware of a situation that validates his anxieties. On his first point, I am sure he will speak for the entire House in regretting the way in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was treated at Strasbourg this morning.

I am grateful for that reply. In view of the frequency of meetings apparently required for the arms deal with the Iranians, does the right hon. Gentleman find it strange that no measure was taken by the Government or knowledge received by them from any source that such a deal was being made?

I have no reason to believe that there was any laxity on the part of the Government, but I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Given that this is a period of goodwill, will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on commanding an audience that did not come in from out of the rain?

I think that we might have just an interlude of good-natured exchanges on these matters, and to that extent I agree with my hon. Friend, but the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) will know perfectly well that he comes back from the United States to fairly well-charged political situations. I could not—[Interruption.]

Order. It is just that sort of question that causes difficulties.

When the Prime Minister is back, will the Leader of the House find out from her whether she knows why the Anglo-Irish Conference yesterday was attended by representatives of the United States Government?

I cannot comment authoritively on that point, but I shall certainly convey it to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to restate the Government's policy of multilateral, rather than unilateral, disarmament? Will he also ask her quickly to repair the damage done by statements made in America giving the impression that we will abandon our allies and renege on our NATO commitments?

I shall most certainly convey the first point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. On the second point, it must be a matter of judgment for the House to assess just how influential was the visit of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). These are fair points in the political debate that commences now and will continue until the general election. We are happy that the Labour party set out its non-nuclear defence policies in the United States, as it has done in this country, because we believe that the popular judgment will lie with us.

Does the Leader of the House accept that if it is true that some officials within MI5 mounted a political operation against Lord Wilson when he was Prime Minister, a full parliamentary inquiry is certainly needed? Does he further accept that if there remains within the MI5 service some criminal and subversive elements who were responsible for what happened in 1974, they should no longer be in the service?

Those points all relate to matters which are being argued directly or indirectly in a court in New South Wales and it would not be appropriate for me to make any further comment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a world of difference between a decision whether to take proceedings in respect of a book by an independent journalist, such as Chapman Pincher, which some of us believe to be the code name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and a decision concerning ex-employees of the service, who propose to tell their all for money, in breach of their undertaking and contract? Does he further agree that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who manages to do down the country over defence policy while he is in America—[interruption]

Order. One question at a time.

My hon. Friend will find that there was an answer yesterday from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General which relates to his first point. I am afraid that I could not hear the second point.

Will the Leader of the House give the House an assurance that the decision whether to order AWACs or Nimrod for the Royal Air Force will be made by the Cabinet as a whole? Does he recognise that failure to proceed with Nimrod would be seen as an act of industrial surrender and would undermine Britain's efforts to remain at the forefront of high technology?

The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on the second part of his question. On the first part, the Liberal party is some distance from Cabinet Government, but I assure him that a decision of this magnitude would necessitate the proper consideration of the Government.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister that there would be deep concern on both sides of the House should a decision be made not to buy Nimrod, because already £800 million has been spent and through its design it is doing a wider job than the AWAC, which will cost £1 billion more and will lose the country core technology for ever?

I shall certainly comply with that request, but I suspect that my hon. Friend has already made it on his own behalf.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

On Nimrod, did the Leader of the House see in The Observer last Sunday the report that the Prime Minister is firmly in the Boeing camp? As a decision is shortly to be made on the airborne early warning system, and as many jobs and the future of the high-tech industry are at risk, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister, when she finally returns, whether she will make a statement making it clear whether she is batting for Britain or for Boeing?

That is an allegation of partiality which I completely reject. This is a major decision affecting the defence and industrial consequence for the United Kingdom, and it will be taken in the appropriate detached fashion.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Contrary to the view being propagated in some quarters, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government are more than happy for the House and the country to spend as much time as they like debating defence and the nation's security? Are the public not right to be wary about the possibility of a party which wants to leave NATO having anything to do with Britain's defence? [Interruption.]

Order. The Lord Privy Seal.

I do not wish to deny the pleasures of my hon. Friend or the House, but I must say that there can be no question of there being as much time as would be liked in the debating of such matters, given all the other commitments in the Queen's Speech. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend that defence will be a central feature at the forthcoming election. We know perfectly well what a non-nuclear policy in the hands of Labour Members implies. We know perfectly well the extent to which it is a retreat from the Socialism of Aneurin Bevan, and we know perfectly well that the defendable alternative that we offer will be decisive in the outcome of that election.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House find time today to inform the Prime Minister that thousands of people are now finding it difficult to purchase their house on mortgage because of high interest charges and redundancy? Is he aware that many of those people who go to their local authorities are now finding themselves homeless because of the Government's policy on public sector housebuilding? What do the Government intend to do about that?

I do not deny for one moment the significance of high interest rates mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but the most important thing that the Government can undertake in that context is to ensure fiscal and budgetary policies which avoid heavy borrowing.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the latest nuclear-free missile which the Leader of the Opposition is about to launch on the nation tommorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Order. The question must be related to the Prime Minister.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.]

Order. One more try.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Government have a policy of ensuring that Britain is properly protected, unlike the sort of policies that the Leader of the Opposition has been propagating in Australia and the United States and from the Opposition Front Bench?

I am sure that the Government have such a policy, and I am sure that it is one that commends itself to their formal treaty allies. In my busy day, I have not yet had the chance to open all incoming mail to see whether I have an invitation to the launch of the Labour defence policy tomorrow, but I shall be interested to see whether there is a single senior United States figure there to endorse it

Why has it taken the Attorney-General six years to contemplate prosecuting Mr. Chapman Pincher under the Official Secrets Act, whereas he has taken much less time to charge Mr. John Lee, a reporter on the Croydon Midweek Post, your local newspaper, Mr. Speaker, under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act?

Order. I do not know anything about this case, but I hope that it is not sub judice.

I was about to say that I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's future military amphibious capability.

I am very pleased to inform the House that the Government have decided to retain an amphibious capability in the longer term.

The House will be grateful to my right hon. Friend, as will those who have responsibilities for the northern flank. I hope that the study that my right hon. Friend mentioned will take place as speedily as possible. Will he confirm that the landing at San Carlos in 1982 would never have taken place if we had not had assault landing ships? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Britain is to have a strong conventional capability it must include a proper assault ship capacity?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I share his appreciation of the great importance of amphibious capability for our defence posture and our NATO contributions. This step will be a major reassurance that we intend to continue this capability.

I warmly welcome this decision. For how long is it possible to extend the life of Fearless and Intrepid? On the new ship designs, is this to be a much cheaper ship, will it have an amphibious lift capacity, with a flat top? What design is envisaged?

The study into the life of Intrepid and Fearless will be looking into the economics and feasibility of extending their life, should that be the preferred option. Calculations of the cost and feasibility will be relevant in making that decision. As to the alternative of possible new vessels, the feasibility study will be looking into the most effective way of making a new vessel to fulfil this role.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many on both sides of the House are devoted to the concept of our maintaining a substantial amphibious capability? Will he assure us that the life of the old ships will be retained until the new ships are ready to take their place?

Yes, I can give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. The expected life of Intrepid and Fearless stretches into the mid-1990s. This should give us ample time, following today's decision, to work out the best method of replacing them.

The decision will be welcomed nowhere more than on Tyneside. I would like to ask the Minister to ensure that, when the feasibility study is completed, Swan Hunter will be paid, because in the past, when it has done feasibility studies, there has been grave doubt as to whether it got full value for the money, time and effort spent on such studies.

I note the hon. Gentleman's last point. He will appreciate that I will not want to make a determination on that until I have had the results of the study. I am as pleased as he is that Swan Hunter competed for the feasibility study contract and that it now has the contract. I can assure him that it will be paid for its work in accordance with the contract terms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these matters have been under discussion for some time and, therefore, feasibility studies are not very satisfactory? Is he also aware that the Royal Marines have lost the use of HMS Centaur and HMS Bulwark? It is essential to have two aircraft support ships in this package. How long will the study take? The ships are aging very rapidly and modern assaults are carried out by helicopter and not by landing craft?

I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's concern about the time scale. I assure him that this is a case in which the Ministry of Defence is taking the appropriate step to decide how best the capability should be continued in plenty of time to ensure that whatever replacement is decided upon will be ready when Intrepid and Fearless, as they are at present in service, come to the end of their useful lives. I agree entirely with the views expressed about the need for helicopter platforms in addition and I have made it clear in my statement that that too remains under consideration.

May I follow the remarks of the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) and stress the importance of preserving this package? When does the Secretary of State expect to be in a position to place an order?

Obviously I shall make a decision on placing an order when I have the results of the feasibility study, which I hope will be available some time towards the end of next year. We will then be able to make a decision in good time, so that the resulting new ships or extended life ships will be available and ready when Intrepid and Fearless reach the end of their lives.

I welcome the statement—which, I might add, is long overdue—and its importance for the future of the Royal Marines. May I press the Secretary of State a little more closely on the time scale? When we have stripped it of all the nice language, in what year can we expect the new ships?

It is our intention that the new ships or refurbished present ships, according to the decision, will be ready by the mid-1990s, when the present ships will reach the end of their useful lives. That is sensible planning and the House will applaud it.

Since

"consience doth made cowards of us all",

It is a refreshing change for the hon. Gentleman to welcome something for Swan Hunter. He has not done that for a long time. I take some exception to his suggestion that Swan Hunter, of all yards, has not been well treated over the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. May I remind him that, although Swan Hunter was not successful in the competition for AOR 1, it was given special preferential treatment in being offered an inside track for AOR 2. I hope that he will not cavil at that or be ungrateful for it, because he will not be in tune with the workers at Swan Hunter if he does.

My right hon. Friend has gauged the welcome given to his announcement by both sides of the House, especially in so far as it affects the Royal Marines. However, he will understand the nervousness that some of us feel lest, judging from experience, this becomes a discussion exercise. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to do two things? First, will he report to the House from time to time on the progress of the replacements? Secondly, and more important, will he personally impose a programme on the feasibility studies and on any subsequent work? It is vital that this amphibious capability is kept in train all the time.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. The announcement ensures that there will be a long-term continuation of the amphibious capability. That is good news for those who are concerned about the future of the Royal Marines as well as of the Royal Navy. I assure the House again—this point needs to be explained—that this is intended to be a process that will end in a replacement of the two ships, Intrepid and Fearless, in time following the end of their useful life. There cannot be better planning than that. If the process works out that way, today's announcement will be seen to have been very timely.

The announcement by the Secretary of State of the continuing commitment to an amphibious capability is very much welcomed by the alliance, but many hon. Members have made it clear that there is considerable concern about the delay in making the announcement and about the further delay that is implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Should the right hon. Gentleman not have grasped the nettle now in respect of ordering new ships? Is it not the case that, stripped of the florid language and the right hon. Gentleman's accustomed sweet reason, this is a delayed decision which is directly due to the impact of Trident expenditure on the defence budget?

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's first remarks, which were sensible and balanced. In the second part of his question, he suggested that we should build a replacement for Intrepid and Fearless before the useful lives of those vessels was over. That would be profligate and very unwise. This plan should ensure that a replacement will be ready just at the end of the useful lives of the present vessels. If the Liberal party thinks that that is unwise, it surprises me.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government intend to ensure that our amphibious capability will continue to be able to operate efficiently within the NATO area and worldwide?

Yes, it is intended that this amphibious capability will continue, as now, to be primarily dedicated to NATO tasks, especially on the northern flank, and to be available in the normal way for any other out-of-area activities that require an amphibious capability.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment, on the Government's behalf, to maintaining the amphibious assault capability of the Royal Marines. Will he confirm that Exercise Saifsareea, which took place two weeks ago in Oman and involved an assault landing by members of 44 Royal Marine Commando from Intrepid, would not have been possible if that commitment had been done away with, nor would maintenance of the Royal Marines' commitment to the defence of the northern flank?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely correct. My announcement shows that the Government believe that we need to maintain this type of amphibious capability. I hope that we can proceed from that base to decide precisely how this capability should be carried on.

I welcome today's announcement, but what is the likelihood of one of the orders coming to the lower Clyde?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. No doubt, when the time comes to put contracts out to tender, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will tender, if they wish to do so. I hope that if they get the order the hon. Gentleman will be a little more grateful for that than the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who represents Swan Hunter, is for all the extra help that we give him.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his welcome decisions. In relation to the replacement vessels, will he ask his advisers to look at the design procedures to ascertain whether costs can be saved in the long term, perhaps by getting away from the traditional design of these types of vessels and using some form of innovation?

I welcome very much what my hon. Friend has said. In the case of all new ship design, we are looking very much for innovation in everything that we do. An example of that would be the immense changes in the Royal Navy's capabilities and its commitment to refits, and so on, for the new type 23 frigate, which is an immense improvement on its predecessors.

May I commend my right hon. Friend for including in his statement a study into the use of helicopters for amphibious purposes? Will he record the fact that helicopters and more general purpose ships can provide much greater flexibility both for amphibious landings and for any other unforeseen possibilities that might arise?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The ability to use helicopters is a central part of the amphibious capability.

May I first thank you, Mr. Speaker, for extending Question Time in the way that you have? Initially, we intended to complain about the use of this device, but when we heard the Minister's answer we realised why he used this device instead of making a statement. As for gratitude, the Opposition can raise only a small cheer, because this is a wholly unsatisfactory statement. It extends only to the promise of a feasibility study, the terms of which we hope the Minster will be prepared to put into the Library so that they can be studied more closely. We are not sure about the exact nature of this type of craft, or about its timing. Will it appear in the 1988-89 Estimates, or in those of 1989-90 or 1990-91? We need to know the answer to this question so that shipbuilding jobs can be protected. We also need to know how long these people will have to wait before they get the kind of jobs that they are so well equipped to fill.

It seems to be extraordinarily easy to muddle the hon. Gentleman. It is a clear and welcome statement. It provides a firm future for the amphibious capability. The time scale that we are offering should enable that capability to be continued at precisely the moment when it will be needed. I have already said several times that the present ships, Intrepid and Fearless, will come to the end of their useful lives in about the middle 1990s. We hope to have replacements of one sort or another ready for them then. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that that is a satisfactory outcome. As for his first remark, it is somewhat unparliamentary of him to object to a device unless the content of the wording used is favourable. As a parliamentarian, I should have thought that he would be glad to have additional information, whether or not he approves of it.