To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all current plans for relocation (a) within Greater London and (b) elsewhere of units of his Department.

It is not possible to provide the detailed information sought by the hon. Member without a disproportionate amount of work. However, I can inform the House that the number of civilian staff in London has reduced by over 10,000 — that is 35 per cent.—since 1979. Moreover, we continue to pursue every opportunity to relocate defence work from London when justified in both operational and economic terms.

The Minister said that the number of jobs in London had been reduced, but does he agree that the number of jobs in other areas of the country has also been reduced? At the previous Defence Question Time the Minister said that only 2·2 per cent. of jobs were located in the north and that that figure had not changed for some time. Therefore, will he take definite steps to relocate jobs in the north and abandon any plans for further office accommodation in London — for example, at Thames House, which does nothing for jobs, but simply helps property speculators in London?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that after the Hardman report in 1973, the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 achieved absolutely no dispersal to Scotland. This Government have a far superior record.

Does my hon. Friend accept that this is not just a matter of the relocation of units of the Department, but is a matter of general spending policy? Is there not a gross disparity in spending between south and north, and will my hon. Friend institute some means of scrutinising the bids from the service chiefs with a view to dispersing them elsewhere in the country?

My hon. Friend is aware that there are very good operational reasons for the concentration of defence establishments in the south. However, whereas we have reduced the number of defence posts in London and the south-east by 35 per cent. since 1979 in our search for greater efficiency, the reduction in the number of posts in the northern region over the same period was only 23 per cent.

Will the Minister tell the House why it is necessary for the Ministry to take offices at Thames House? Can he not accept that if his Department located in the north, it would not only save the taxpayer money, but would provide jobs in areas that badly need them?

I assure the House that there are no plans to centralise in Thames House, Millbank part of the MOD headquarters staff at present located in London. As I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware, accommodation for London-based headquarters staff is a matter for the Property Services Agency.

As we are talking about buildings as well as jobs, will my hon. Friend say when the Ministry intends to relinquish its buildings in the Stanmore area — both the Royal Air Force and other MOD buildings? In due course that accommodation will be available for pressing housing requirements.

That matter is under active review.

Can the Minister say when he will decide about the future location of the directorate-general of quality assurance? Is he aware that the uncertainty has continued for years and is now starting to affect morale? When he makes a decision, will he bear in mind the contribution of the people of Woolwich to that military establishment and many others, for generations?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter and I recognise that Woolwich has a long association with the Ministry of Defence. The issues involved in the location of the quality assurance office are complex, and further study is needed before we can reach a decision. However, I hope that it will not be too long before we can give further information.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up a further inquiry into the disappearance of the log book from HMS Conqueror, in the light of recent allegations that the log book was deliberately destroyed.

As I have already explained in correspondence with the hon. Member, the official concerned categorically denies the allegations. The fact is that he was not, in 1982, nor has he ever been, in a post which would have given him access to naval log books. On that basis, no case has been made out for reopening the inquiry.

Is it not the case that the commander of the Conqueror reacted with incredulity to the order to torpedo the Belgrano, that that order had to be repeated three times over six hours and that the messages between Northwood and the Conqueror would have been recorded verbatim in the log book, and that is why the Government ordered its incineration?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what control room log books are about. They are about technical matters, such as the course, depth and speed of a submarine at a particular time.

Does the Minister agree that the sinking of the Belgrano was operationally correct and necessary, and that the Argentines have agreed that, placed in similar circumstances, they would have done exactly the same? Why do the Opposition persist in trying to discredit the Royal Navy, when they should be proud of it?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but one does not have to be a Member of the House for very long to know that most of the Opposition's ideas about defence are wonky.

What on earth could have prompted the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), to opine that he wanted

"to make sure that there was not a Watergate round here"? Who could he have had in mind for the role of Richard Nixon?

The hon. Gentleman can speculate on all sorts of things, but I cannot follow him on that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the safety of the Trident missile programme of the recent test firing of a Trident 2 missile at Cape Canaveral.

The latest test flight of a Trident D5 missile on 21 January revealed a deficiency in the design of one of the missile sub-systems. One of the objectives of project development programmes is to expose any design deficiencies. There have already been eight successful Trident II firings and, overall, the development test programme has been highly successful.

Is not the truth that the testing was a miserable failure, with the missile exploding after two minutes 43 seconds? Does that not prove that the people who target the missiles are in more danger than those targeted, and would not the money be better spent on the National Health Service and on housing?

The objective of such tests is to discover whether the missile systems are working properly, and, as the test clearly demonstrated that this particular missile was not working properly, the test can be said to have been a 100 per cent. success. The hon. Lady might agree on reflection that it is no use having the most perfect health service in the world if one cannot defend the country in which that health service exists.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he and the Government are going for the D5 for precisely the same reasons as the Opposition went for updating our deterrent by going for Chevaline without telling anybody?

Yes, my hon. and learned Friend is correct. The Opposition updated the Polaris system because they, too, wished it to be effective when they were in office. The sad thing is that they have abandoned responsibility now that they are out of office.

Does the Minister agree that this is now the second or third hold-up in the project and that the expenditure of £500 million on the latest enhancement programme for Polaris suggests that we are miles behind schedule, contrary to all the undertakings given during the general election?

The hon. Gentleman is utterly wrong. There is no hold-up in the Trident system, which is absolutely up to time. [Interruption.] Yes, it is absolutely up to time, including the warheads, which are being made in Britain. In fact, the manufacture of the warheads was started last month.

In Cardiff, not in Aldermaston.

No, in Aldermaston. The tests are designed to make sure that the system is working properly, and the test series has been the most successful of any missile system yet.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to the number and nature of nuclear weapons accidents or systems malfunctions.

There has never been an accident involving damage to, or release of radioactivity from, a nuclear weapon in the United Kingdom. Nor has there been any malfunction of systems associated with such a weapon which could have posed a hazard to service men or to members of the public.

Has the Minister seen the "Handbook of Nuclear Weapons Accidents" published by Bradford university? Has he noticed that the handbook lists some horrendous near misses, such as missiles virtually launching themselves because of computer error, or weapons exploding and only by luck not detonating the nuclear warheads? Does the Minister not agree that, in the words of the former United States Admiral Eugene Carroll, our nuclear weapons are just a trigger to commit suicide? Would we not be better off without them?

I am aware of the latest in the series of publications by the Bradford school of so-called peace studies, but, as usual with its publications, this one contains a large number of false assumptions. Not surprisingly, its conclusions are equally astray.

Has my hon. Friend seen the profusion of questions on the Order Paper from the Labour party on nuclear weapons? Does he consider reports that the Labour party may be moving towards an acceptance of nuclear weapons as an essential part of our—

Order. The Minister cannot answer for reports about the Labour party.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman made rather a duff start.

Can the Minister confirm that there was an accident in Lakenheath in 1956 in which an American plane carrying nuclear weapons crashed on the aerodrome and was allowed to burn out, including its crew, because the danger of radioactive leaks from the nuclear weapons was so horrendous, and that it came within a hair's breadth of causing a major nuclear explosion at that time?

The assurances that I gave the House in response the original question cover the incident that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and all other such incidents.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the West German Government regarding nuclear strategy.

None, Sir.

Is it not true that Germany is anxious to negotiate away battlefield nuclear weapons, because the Germans are very worried that a nuclear war might be fought on their soil? Instead of welcoming reductions in nuclear thresholds in East and West, the British Government are leading the pack in demanding rearmament in Europe to make up for the INF cuts. I understand that the decisions are to be made in May by NATO Defence Ministers in Denmark. Can the House have an undertaking that we will discuss the matter before those serious decisions are made?

The German Government entirely support the nuclear strategy of the NATO Alliance, of which they are prominent members. The Alliance will be discussing the next stages in the process of nuclear disarmament in the next two months. It will, I think, agree that the priorities for the next stage should be a worldwide ban on chemical weapons, and a start on reducing conventional weapons.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the leaders of West Germany realise that the Trident programme is the guarantee of their freedom and ours, and that if we were to abandon the nuclear deterrent we should be faced by the vast superiority of the Warsaw pact countries in conventional and chemical weapons? Will he promise to listen not to the harridans of Greenham Common, but to the common sense of the British people?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that the German Government and people will understand that their safety and security depend on the nuclear strategy of NATO.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is as aware as I am that the Soviets have an overwhelming superiority over the West in short-range nuclear weapons. Is it not a fact that the British Government are opposed to a negotiation between NATO and the USSR because it is most likely that Mr. Gorbachev would agree to removing all those short-range nuclear weapons, despite the fact that the Soviet Union has a great excess, and that the British Government are terrified of the denuclearisation fo Europe, which is what the people of Europe want?

The hon. Lady ignores the fact that this Government have been leading the search for fewer nuclear weapons and are the first Government ever to have achieved a reduction in nuclear weapons.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is a war on West German soil the aggressor is hardly likely to be either NATO or the West German Government?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The question of conventional weapons must address the fact that the Warsaw pact forces are arraigned in an offensive posture and it is that which we must negotiate away as soon as we can.

I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that there is consensus in the Federal Republic, between Right and Left, that there should be parallel talks on the reduction and elimination of battlefield nuclear weapons, and on conventional arms reductions. If the talks on conventional reductions prosper, the talks on battlefield nuclear weapons can prosper. However, if they do not, there will not be any progress in the talks on battlefield nuclear weapons. Why are the Government so opposed to such a reasonable suggestion? What are they afraid of?

The right hon. Gentleman is putting words in the mouths of the Germans, who fully support NATO's nuclear strategy, which depends upon a flexible response being available in any possible nuclear attack. The NATO Alliance as a whole, including Germany, will have to make up its mind whether it agrees with the priorities that I have set out as the British Government's view. It will do that in the next few months.

Last week the Prime Minister commented on the need to modernise nuclear weapons. That could have implications for the Federal Republic. Has the Prime Minister discussed that view with any representative of the German Government? Have any decisions yet been taken on modernising a British tactical nuclear weapon, or is that decision to await the decision of the NATO nuclear planning group?

No decisions of that kind have been taken. This matter predates the INF agreement. It is necessary that we keep our existing weapons systems up to date. Nobody can keep weapons systems without keeping them up to date. That is what the Montebello discussions were all about, and we shall have to reconsider that in the future to make sure that we never have outdated weapons.

When responding to the Opposition, who use the West Germans to support their unilateralist cause, will my right hon. Friend remind the House of West Germany's record and of the fact that it was the West German Government and leaders who appealed to NATO to bring in the dual-track policy that brought about the installation of cruise weapons in the first place?

Yes. Opposition Members are being most unfair to West Germany, which is a strong advocate of NATO's strategy. I remind Opposition Members that all the NATO allies, without exception, support NATO's strategy of nuclear deterrence. Only the British Labour party is out of step in this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the introduction of Short's Tucano into RAF service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the introduction of Short's Tucano into Royal Air Force service.

The release-to-service trials programme is continuing at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment, Boscombe Down, and should be completed within the next few months.

Is the Minister still convinced that the design and engine power of these aircraft will be suitable and that when they are introduced at squadron level they will not prove expensive to maintain, and possibly, be failures? Is he really satisfied that there are not problems, other than armament problems, with these aircraft?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we still consider that the Tucano will meet the RAF's training needs satisfactorily. Therefore, there are obviously no plans to review our decision to purchase that plane. Nor do we expect it to be unduly expensive to operate.

Can the Minister remember coming to the House and telling us that this aircraft was the bee's knees and that it was the aircraft that we needed to train our RAF personnel? Will he now stand at the Dispatch Box and say that that statement was a failure? You know, Mr. Speaker, some of the Ministers in this Administration are useless. If the Minister was a councillor and had wasted ratepayer's money in the way that he has wasted taxpayers' money, he would be disqualified.

My memory does not go back quite as far as the hon. Gentleman's. I do not recall being at the Dispatch Box and using such an eloquent phrase as the "bee's knees". I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have every confidence in the aeroplane. There is no cost penalty for the Ministry of Defence because of any delay, as there is a fixed-price contract and the aircraft are paid for when they are delivered.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that because it is a fixed-price contract—130 aircraft for £125 million—the lateness in the delivery of the initial aircraft will not add one penny to the overall cost, and may even help his cash flow? It will not have any effect on the completion of the delivery.

I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend said. The late delivery does not add one penny to the overall cost. Throughout the delivery period we hope that there will be an acceleration that will enable us to catch up on some of the original delays.

How is the reciprocal trade agreement on Short's Tucano going?

My hon. Friend may know that there is no offset arrangement with Brazil for the Tucano because some 90 per cent. of the value of the airframe is represented by work to be carried out in the United Kingdom, mainly by Short's. We have an offset agreement with the engine manufacturer, Garrett, and that is bringing significant benefits to United Kingdom industry.

Why will the Minister not come clean and lay the facts before the House? The two Tucano prototypes that have been delivered and are undergoing tests have only flown for three quarters of an hour— [Interruption.] That information was given to me in answer to a written question in mid-January. Those prototypes have flown for only three quarters of an hour. At this time the RAF should have at least 24 such aircraft in service. I wonder whether the Minister is now considering hiring some PC9s from the Saudi Air Force, which has had its aircraft delivered, in quantity, already?

If the Jet Provost were not flying we should be flying the Tucano instead—there would be no cost in that. The hon. Gentleman has got those figures wrong, as he has the others. I hope, he will appreciate that the RAF has, correctly, extremely high standards, especially for training aircraft. There have been delays to ensure that those standards are satisfied. So far, the five production aircraft have achieved a total of 180 flying hours.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tucano, with its new upgraded engine, the strengthened wing spar against bird strikes and improved undercarriage, is a different aeroplane from the Tucano that was first looked at? When the new Tucano comes into service it will be capable of doing exactly what the RAF requires.

I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend says. The RAF has every confidence that the Tucano will meet requirements and specifications.

Will the Minister confirm that not only has Short's an excellent reputation for a sturdy plane, but that, time and again, the world has turned to Short's to satisfy its needs, as the Queen's prize for exports has testified year after year?

The hon. Gentleman will know that Short's has a long and proud history of providing defence equipment, and I hope that it will continue to maintain that record.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of maintaining the Jet Provost planes in operation.

About £65,000 per aircraft per year.

Is not the Minister's reply shameful, given that our pilots are training in antique planes, when the Minister promised the House that the Tucano aircraft would be in operation by this time? The Government have failed the country yet again on this issue. Is the Minister not ashamed to come to the Dispatch Box and say that the new planes are not being introduced and are costing the taxpayer a great deal of money? As my hon. Friend said, if the Minister had been a councillor and shown the same attitude, he would have been disqualified from holding office.

I am sorry that both the hon. Gentleman and I have had part of the ground cut away from under our feet by the answers to the previous question. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said. There is no extra cost to the Ministry of Defence budget through running on the Jet Provosts because, in the meantime, the Ministry of Defence does not have to find the up-front money for the Tucano. The Jet Provost is more expensive to run than the Tucano and it consumes more fuel, but, until such time as the Ministry of Defence has to pay for the Tucanos, the net effect of this is not to add any extra cost to the Ministry of Defence budget.

Will the Minister consider carefully the regulations governing the use of aircraft as demonstrators? Is he aware that yesterday a con man, purporting to represent the Sultan of Brunei, persuaded the Royal Air Force to fly up to Norwich airport a BA146 of the Queen's Flight for a full demonstration, involving a free flight and a full briefing of all the sensitive equipment in the aircraft? Will he tell the House why the RAF did not check that person's credentials? Does he agree that a full explanation is required?

I agree with my hon. Friend that a full explanation is required, and I understand that the person concerned is helping the police with their inquiries.

Given the Minister's statement, is it not also opportune to pay compensation to Sergeant Jarvey of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, who is linked with that project, and therefore compensate him in a small way for all the stupidity and nonsense that we heard from the brass hats in Berlin about his alleged misconduct? Is it not time that something was done to make amends to Sergeant Jarvey? Does the Minister remember the case?

I do not know whether the person concerned was flying a Jet Provost at the time, but I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to what we have been discussing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West German counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

I last met Dr. Woerner on 20 January, when we discussed matters of mutual interest.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is both his view and that of Chancellor Kohl, as set out in a speech in Munich on 2 February, that, until further progress has been made on the reduction in conventional forces and the elimination of chemical weapons, the denuclearisation of Europe is not an option? Will he also confirm that, in the meantime, the upgrading and modernisation of nuclear and short-term weapons, which have not been included in the INF agreement, are vital to European security?

I understand that, as my hon. Friend says, those are roughly the views of Chancellor Kohl and of the West German Government. Certainly, all the NATO allies are agreed that our weapons systems must be kept up to date.

When my right hon. Friend met his counterpart, did he have an opportunity to express the value that we attach to the kindness and hospitality of the West German people when our troops are on exercises in West Germany fulfilling their NATO function? Will there be more exchanges of home-based forces, particularly territorial forces, with the British Army of the Rhine, to take part in mutual exercises?

Dr. Woerner and I have discussed these matters on many occasions. I have no doubt that he and the German Government are extremely grateful for the presence of British forces in Germany. We are grateful for the training facilities with which they are able to help us.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets his West German counterpart, will he discuss with him the incident at Faslane on HMS Resolution on 26 January in my constituency, which was described by the Ministry of Defence as a minor electrical malfunction? The Ministry of Defence did not give a sufficiently robust rebuttal of what happened, so my constituents—

Order. It is difficult to relate this to the question.

It is related because of the interest of the European Community in the incident. [Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear whether the question is relevant or not.

Many European reporters contacted me about the matter.

I do not think that it will be necessary for me to raise this with Dr. Woerner, because I would only have to tell him that there was a small electrical malfunction. At no point was there any danger to anyone on board or in the neighbourhood. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be glad to retail that in full detail to his constituents, who have nothing to fear.

Did my right hon. Friend discuss the European fighter aircraft with Dr. Woerner? If so, what did he say?

Yes, my hon. Friend has guessed correctly. We discussed the European fighter aircraft and Dr. Woerner expressed himself and his Government as being determined to press on with it and—I agreed with him about this—to try to reduce its price. I am glad to say that good progress has been made and I hope that the partners will be able to get together before long to agree the next stage.

The Secretary of State has still not given the House a rational explanation of why the Government are so opposed to parallel talks on conventional arms reductions and battlefield nuclear weapons. As we have constantly been told that NATO must have battlefield weapons because of the large concentrations of Soviet armour, and as conventional talks will be about reducing those, why not have parallel talks on battlefield nuclear weapons, especially as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact have some superiority in nuclear artillery and a large superiority in short-range nuclear missiles?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has made my point for me. If what he said meant anything, it meant that it would be infinitely wiser to go for conventional reductions first to establish whether the tank concentrations that he talked about can be reduced.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, were there to be significant reductions in conventional Soviet forces, and were they to be pulled back behind the Urals, because of the much greater reinforcement distances across the Atlantic for American reinforcements there would still be the potential for an imbalance to reassert itself quickly? That is why it will always be essential that we have battlefield nuclear weapons.

My hon. Friend is right. The whole reinforcement capability will have to be taken into account in the conventional talks. The House should be in no doubt, and should not forget, that we are having this discussion in the context of the first major progress in arms reduction, which was a product of the policy that the Government have been following.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the French Government regarding nuclear strategy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the French Government regarding nuclear strategy.

We maintain a fruitful dialogue with the French Government on a wide range of defence matters of mutual interest, including nuclear matters.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the Government's attitude to the fact that, because the Franco-German defence council and brigade remain outside of NATO, and because of the Prime Minister's total reliance on the USA, there is a danger of a serious military split occurring?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need fear such a split. We take the view that the Franco-German brigade is a welcome development, especially as none of the troops for it will be taken from troops that are already committed to NATO. It is therefore a bilateral development outwith NATO, which can only help the strength of the West.

What is the Government's attitude to the new Franco-German defence council and brigade outside NATO?—[Interruption.] Given the fact that the Prime Minister is wholly relying on the United States, will there not be a military split?

With respect to the hon. Member, I think that that is the question asked by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), which I answered a moment ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the robust, independent pro-nuclear policy of the former Socialist Government and Socialist President of West Germany has much to commend it to the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is correct. I only wish that the previous Socialist Governments of West Germany could give a teach-in to the Labour party about sensible defence policies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most helpful developments in European policy and strategy is the increasing willingness of France to engage in manoeuvres with her allies in NATO? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that France carries out manoeuvres, not only with West Germany, but with ourselves?

I very much welcome the extremely good defence relationship that we have with France at present. It is helpful not only in joint manoeuvres—which are developing quite satisfactorily—but in joint procurement policies, which also have great promise for the future.

Further to that point, does the Secretary of State agree that it is about time that the French paid their full dues to Europe and became, once again, full members of NATO and stopped trying to have their cake and eat it?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I hope that the time will come when the French will feel able to come into the military structure of NATO. At the present time we are happy to develop warmer and closer relations with France, and I believe that that is happening now.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that President Mitterrand of France is to attend the forthcoming NATO summit, which will be the first time that a French Head of State has attended it for more than 20 years? Does he think that that is a positive sign for the increasing integration of France, in practice, into the defence of Western Europe?

Yes, I think that the presence of the French Government, at presidential level, is a good augury for a successful NATO summit, which I hope will produce a clear and strong declaration.

To ask the Secretary for State for Defence how many aircraft types there are in the Royal Air Force currently classified as dual-capable.

Three, Sir.

Is there any intention to include the three dual-capable aircraft, which are capable of nuclear use, in conventional—[Interruption.]

Order. It is very difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.

Is there any intention to include those three aircraft in the Geneva conventional arms talks, or is it the Government's intention never to introduce discussions about nuclear capability into negotiations?

We do not believe that nuclear systems should be included in conventional arms talks.

Does my hon. Friend agree that dual capability for the RAF is not new? It goes back to the introduction of the Victor, Vulcan and Valiant in the early 1950s. Therefore, the RAF is simply maintaining the capacity that it has had over all those years.

My hon Friend is right. There is a long history of dual-capable systems for aeroplanes. As to the negotiations on arms control, which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised, we believe that conventional talks should concentrate on conventional forces. The priority in that regard is the great advantage and numerical superiority that Warsaw pact forces have in conventional ground forces.

Will the Minister tell the House when those RAF aircraft will benefit from the protection and security of a NATO identification friend or foe system, for which we have been waiting for years?

As the hon. Member knows, we have studied the systems for a long time. We are always anxious to update IFF and other systems, and I have no doubt that those aeroplanes will benefit from that.

Will the Minister simply give a straight answer: will the three dual-capable Tornados be included in any conventional arms talks?

We have said that we would not expect nuclear capability to be included in conventional arms talks. We have not said that dual-capable aircraft or other systems should be excluded in so far as that applies to their conventional role.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

As this is such a crucial moment, will my right hon. Friend today and in coming weeks continue her determined and much appreciated efforts to secure an international peace conference and a lasting settlement in the middle east, bearing in mind that this must be done without preconditions on either side, that the credibility of the United States is inevitably reduced by its historic and strategic closeness to one party to the dispute, and that Europe and the United Kingdom have a unique role to play in this process?

As my hon. Friend knows, our policy has not changed, over the past year in particular, when we have espoused the cause of an international conference as a background for direct negotiations between King Hussein and the Palestinians and Israel. It has not been possible to get that going because it has not met with a sufficient degree of support from Mr. Shamir. We shall continue to espouse that course because we think it is the best one. The other side of the problem arises as to who shall negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians, but I believe that that particular part is soluble.

First, I warmly welcome the reply that the Prime Minister gave on the international conference.

No, Mr. Speaker. This is about the fifth time that I have had the same question, so the answer will be precisely the same. The pay award will be dealt with in precisely the same way as previous awards, and of course previous awards have been highly beneficial to the nurses. I did look up to see precisely the dates upon which we dealt with it last year. All the reports of the review bodies came in between 1 and 14 April. We like to deal with them altogether. The nurses, doctors, dentists, the profession supplementary to medicine, the armed forces and the top salaries pay review bodies' reports all came in within a fortnight and we announced all our decisions by 23 April. I hope that if the reports come in in a similar group this year we will be equally expeditious in announcing our decision.

The Prime Minister says that she has made the commitment before, but never before have we had a Select Committee with a majority of her hon. Friends saying publicly that the absence of a commitment is causing "damaging uncertainty", and never before have we had the same Select Committee saying that the Prime Minister has up to £2 billion extra that she could spend on the National Health Service without changing the proportion of GDP spent on the service. When that service has such desperate and immediate need today, and when she plainly has the money, why does she not use the money?

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave a very effective reply to the Select Committee. With regard to GDP, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that not only has GDP gone up—there is further good news on that today; it is up 5 per cent. on what it was a year ago—but the proportion of unincreased GDP spent on the Health Service has gone up from 4·8 per cent. under Labour to 5·6 per cent under the Government.

The Prime Minister quotes her right hon. Friend. In response to him, her right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that coded messages were not enough and that his reply was not good enough. Today, now, wards are being closed and uncertainty is causing damage because the right hon. Lady will not make a commitment. Why does she not make a commitment and relieve the health authorities of further weeks of uncertainty, causing further damage to the Health Service?

The nurses have had great action under Tory Governments, and have had pay increases of 30 per cent. over and above inflation, compared with a 20 per cent. reduction under Labour. The nurses have done very well under Tory Governments, and I shall deal with the report as I have indicated.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that vast sums of public money have been given to the Rover car company and that further sums of money should not be given to that company to fund excessive pay demands?

My hon. Friend is correct. During the lifetime of this Government about £2·9 billion has been given to the Rover-Leyland group. There is no intention of providing any more money specifically to fund the demand for an increase greater than that which the management has decided to offer. It is for the management and the work force to resolve the strike. I hope that it will not last long, because strikes do not help anyone, least of all those who work in a particular company. My fear is that that would be handing jobs and business to Japan.

I am pleased that the Prime Minister is a regular visitor to Cornwall, but is she aware that in so doing she and many others are adding to the burden on the Health Service in Cornwall? Roads are congested and ambulances are less able to move around the county as hospital closures increase. Will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, please.

Will the Prime Minister ensure, within the review of the Health Service, that a new commitment is made to tackle the problem of rural scatter in areas such as my constituency?

We shall have a very thorough review of the Health Service, taking into account many representations. If the hon. Member has specific and rather more definite representations to make, perhaps he will let me have them in writing.

When does my right hon. Friend expect the flotation of the National Freight Corporation, a business that was previously owned by the state and is now owned by its workers? Are not the privatisation and flotation further examples of the transfer of wealth in favour of working people and their families?

I very much welcome the progress that the National Freight Corporation has made since it was privatised by a management buy-out. It has done very well by its work force, and the work force has done very well by the National Freight Corporation. Profits have increased by about nine times since privatisation, and those who helped with the buy-out have had a very good deal. I wish the company well for the flotation.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with Lord Denning that it is better to have one or two innocent people remain in gaol than to risk undermining the credibility of the legal system by having to own up to a mistake? [Interruption.] Does she further agree that nothing discredits our system of justice so much as the widespread notion that some mistakes are too big to own up to?

The hon. Gentleman asked me to agree with a proposition by Lord Denning. I would prefer to see the proposition in context. I understand that the hon. Member may be referring once again to the recent hearing by the Court of Appeal of the case of the Birmingham pub bombings. The Court of Appeal hearing fully examined the defence case and decided that the convictions were sound. The Court of Appeal has certified that there is a point of public importance. I understand that the appellants intend to apply to the House of Lords to pursue the matter. The judgment, of course, is fully available to those who wish to read it in detail.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to consider the Japanese ambassador's comment that if there were a business Olympics we would win gold medals? What kind of medals would we win if the Opposition were in charge?

I saw the most excellent comment by the Japanese ambassador. I think that he and Japan are very pleased with the inward investment that they have had into this country. They have insisted on one union only with which to negotiate. The companies have done well and the work force has done well. They have done well for Britain and we are very pleased with the compliments of the Japanese ambassador on our excellent, enterprising industry.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the fundamental importance to the Scottish economy of the coal and steel industries? Is she aware of the widespread concern that thousands of jobs which depend upon these industries are threatened by privatisation? Will she take steps to direct British Steel to invest in new facilities in Scotland? Will she put an end to the suggested economic lunacy of a privatised South of Scotland Electricity Board being allowed to close pits by importing foreign coal?

The hon. Gentleman has, not unexpectedly, asked two questions, one about steel and one about coal. As to steel, it is the subject of a debate later. The hon. Gentleman is aware that undertakings, subject to commercial considerations, were given to Ravenscraig with respect to steelmaking for the next seven years and to the Associated Dalzell plant for plate-rolling. It was, I think, an undertaking for the longest production of almost any steel plant in Europe. I thought that that went down extremely well in Scotland. We hope to undertake the privatisation of electricity, including Scottish electricity, during the lifetime of this Parliament. There will, I hope, be a White Paper out soon about our proposal.

When my right hon. Friend signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, did she expect that the Irish Government would use it to justify a unilateral inquiry into an incident that occurred within the United Kingdom, to restrict the extradition of alleged terrorists from Ireland, to set aside a decision of the Attorney-General and to attempt to reverse the verdict of the British Court of Appeal?

I do not think that it is right or possible to use the Anglo-Irish Agreement for that purpose, if one looks at the terms of the agreement. With regard to the inquiry which the Republic of Ireland has recently indicated that it has set up, of course, in their own country the Irish Government can inquire into anything they wish, but not in matters north of the border. I have taken note of what my Friend has said about the extradition arrangements which we had with them and which were changed unilaterally. I have nothing to add to the excellent statement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made in the House on other matters.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

Further to the question that was asked earlier by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, was the Prime Minister denying the report that appeared in today's Daily Telegraph that Ministers have already decided not fully to fund the nurses' pay review, but instead to seek further efficiency savings? If she is not denying those reports, when will she realise that for her to suggest that nurses' pay should be funded only at the expense of patient care would be beyond contempt and rejected decisively by this House, as it has been by the Select Committee on Social Services, and as it will be by the people of this country?

I have not read any newspapers today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have been far too busy. What appears in those newspapers is not my responsibility. We shall deal with the report of the review bodies in precisely the same way and with precisely the same expedition as we dealt with them in previous years, and in particular last year. The hon. Gentleman will not have long to wait.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take points of order after the statement.

I have a point of order arising out of Prime Minister's questions, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a matter, but I shall still take points of order after the statement.