To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with his Department's small firms initiative; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with his Department's small firms initiative; and if he will make a statement.

The small firms initiative, which was launched by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in November 1986, has contributed to a 30 per cent. increase in the number of firms seeking registration on the defence contractors list, and a greater proportion of those applying are accepted for registration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it was the Ministry of Defence which, in 1980, pioneered the arrangements under which small and medium-sized firms were invited by the Ministry of Defence to tender for services and that in the process it saved £14 million—40 per cent. of previous costs? Does my hon. Friend agree that, with 1,300 companies now applying to the Ministry of Defence through the initiative, we may look forward to further value for money and competitiveness and a higher standard of goods, as was intended in 1980?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad to say that nearly 2,000 small firms have approached the Ministry of Defence as a result of the initiative, and those firms make a valuable contribution to our procurement effort overall.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems facing small companies is the excessively long time that it takes them to get paid by the bigger companies involved in defence work? Will he consider using the considerable leverage that the Ministry of Defence has to insist that the smaller companies' terms of business are adhered to by the bigger companies, which, in turn, no doubt like their own terms of business to be honoured by the Ministry of Defence?

I am very conscious of that point, and we have emphasised it in our defence contract guides. If my right hon. Friend has any particular examples of slow payment to bring to my attention, I shall be happy to follow them up.

As part of his general concern for small firms and their dealings with the Ministry of Defence, will the Minister give some consideration to small firms which undertake subcontracting work in good faith and find themselves with no protection from the Ministry of Defence, despite the fact that it is the end beneficiary of the enterprise? For example, he may be aware that several small firms in Scotland have experienced extreme financial difficulty as a result of not being paid for the work that they undertook on the Gairlochead bypass project.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that small firms have for a long time played a major part in the defence procurement effort as subcontractors of main contractors. In those circumstances, the contractural relationships are the responsibility, not of the Ministry of Defence, but of the main contractor and his subcontractors. As I said earlier, we emphasise to main contractors the importance that we attach to their passing on proper payments to their subcontractors. I repeat that I shall be happy to investigate specific examples which are brought to my attention.

Is the initiative, and the small firms involved in it, sufficiently robust to avoid the gross waste of up to £2 billion of public money on defence procurement every year, as revealed in the internal Ministry of Defence report "Learning from Experience"?

I shall not be drawn by my hon. Friend on the specific figure that he mentions. However, I should like to emphasise again that we believe that if we have the widest possible number of contractors contributing to our competitive procurement methods that will help us to obtain value for money, and small firms have a valuable role to play in that process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for nuclear disarmament he will take to the NATO nuclear planning group meeting at Kolding in April.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to attend the nuclear planning group of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

My right hon. Friend, who is on an official visit to the far east, has asked me to reply.

Will the Minister confirm what the Prime Minister told the House on 4 March, that the meeting at Kolding will have on its agenda proposals for new deployments to compensate for the withdrawals being made under the INF agreement? Did not the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag, and is not one of the aims to sabotage or undermine the great gains made by the INF treaty?

It has long been recognised in NATO that force adjustments are needed from time to time in the light of changing circumstances, including, of course, questions such as the INF agreement, and that matter rests. There is no sign of remission by the Warsaw pact in the modernisation of its forces and it is entirely right that NATO should consider what it needs to do about updating its nuclear and conventional capabilities and making sure that its forces are deployed in the most effective way for the security of the West. Conservative Members believe that that is the top priority.

How does the Minister suppose the Secretary of State will react when he is reminded by his German colleague that all parties in the Bundestag are agreed that the disarmament process should continue in respect of nuclear weapons with a range of less than 500 km? Moreover, how will he react when he is reminded by the rest of his European colleagues on the NPG that they are disinclined to link any approval of compliance with the INF with any correction of the conventional imbalance? Does the Minister see how far his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been isolated by the Prime Minister? Is he prepared to conjecture how far the Secretary of State will react?

The impression that I gained when I visited NATO and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe, last week was that the other members of NATO were coming to accept the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's position. Indeed, the priorities established in NATO—arms control is indeed a question of priorities —are clear. We want a 50 per cent. agreement for the reduction of strategic weapons, we want a worldwide ban on chemical weapons, and we need to tackle conventional forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that in Germany there is some political anxiety about the process, but all Heads of State, including Chancellor Kohl of Germany, accepted the declaration at the end of the NATO summit meeting that short-range nuclear forces should be tackled only in conjunction with conventional forces and a chemical ban, not vice versa.

Is not the pernicious and false propaganda being peddled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and some of his hon. Friends precisely what we have to counteract with the truth? Is it not true that we have to modernise our weapons, and that if we had not modernised our intermediate nuclear forces we would not have the first agreement to reduce and eliminate one set of nuclear weapons? That is what our opponents understand. We must continue to modernise, and it must never be confused with substitution. There is no question that we are substituting any INF weapons that have been removed. There is every need for us to modernise and keep up to date with the rest so that we can negotiate more real reductions from strength.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The question of modernisation hardly seems to be a matter capable of dispute because, shortly after the INF agreement, the Soviet Defence Minister said that the Soviet Union would exert all efforts to make the Warsaw pact even more powerful. Non-modernisation by NATO in the face of the relentless build up by the Warsaw pact would be unilateral disarmament by another name. It would be gradual unilateral disarmament I agree, but, none the less, that is what it would be. Perhaps that is why it appeals so much to Opposition Members.

Does the Minister accept that there is no case for trying to replace the INF systems that have been so painfully negotiated away, but that there is a powerful argument for sticking to the 1983 Montebello decision, which argued that NATO's nuclear stockpile should be smaller but effective, survivable and more sophisticated? Is it not a matter of prudent common sense in the current situation?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, that it is not only prudent but necessary to follow through the Montebello decisions in the way that he suggests. The reduction of nuclear weapons was an important part of the Montebello decision, and I welcome the fact that the INF agreement removes a whole class of nuclear weapons. It is our intention that it should lead to a reduction of nuclear weapons in Europe.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the unilateralist policies advocated by the Opposition had been pursued, the INF agreement would probably not have come about? When he deals with the NATO nuclear planning group, will he be kind enough to put forward some of the points advanced by the French, who are still members of NATO, although, regrettably, not part of its integrated structure?

Like my hon. and learned Friend, I regret that the French are not part of NATO's integrated military structure, but they are showing welcome signs of taking a closer interest in the general affairs of NATO, which is greatly to be welcomed.

When the nuclear planning group meets, will the remit of the Minister's right hon. Friend be secure compensation, his objective at Monterey, or modernisation, which was the Prime Minister's objective at Brussels? Or, in respect of short-range weapons, will it merely be the deferment of any decision until the 1990s, as suggested by Chancellor Kohl after the last summit?

Many matters are under consideration by NATO. This is a continuous process. The modernisation of forces that we have been discussing is one of those matters, but, equally, adjustments and deployment of forces are always on the agenda—and so they should be. I cannot understand why some Opposition Members think that there is something wrong or immoral about ensuring that, as there are no limits on the deployment of forces by the other side, our forces should be deployed in the most effective way for the security of the West. That is what NATO will be considering.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the Navy's operations in the Gulf have on its anti-submarine capability in the north Atlantic.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the Royal Navy's operations in the Gulf have on its anti-submarine capability in the north Atlantic.

The Royal Navy maintains an active programme of training in all aspects of anti-submarine warfare in addition to carrying out its current tasks.

Does the Minister agree that the Gulf operation has stretched the Royal Navy elsewhere? Would it not be better, perhaps, to order more ships for the genuine protection of our country's interests than to spend billions of pounds on Trident?

The hon. Gentleman is correct that the activities in the Gulf entail a great deal of effort and involvement by ships of the Royal Navy, but we must always consider the balance of tasks and training, which varies over time.

The whole House will have been saddened by the unprecedented loss of life that has taken place in the Gulf in the last 24 hours. It is a reminder to us all of the courage of our seamen who are engaged there, but the fact remains that if our most capable ships are employed there, performing a role that is at best secondary for this country —defending the interests of foreign business men using our country as a flag of convenience—we are neglecting our primary role of patrolling the north Atlantic and carrying out an anti-submarine function there. Should we not seek an expansion of our fleet, because the abnormal military position is rapidly becoming the norm?

I have explained to the House that we have a substantial destroyer and frigate fleet. Of course, in the Gulf it is necessary to concentrate more on air defence of ships as opposed to the anti-submarine capability. We must balance the need for training and exercises for a potential wartime role—which, I am sure, is not imminent—against immediate operational needs. The Navy, and, indeed, all the armed forces, must do that.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the views expressed in Washington that, post-INF, the Soviets may redeploy their missile submarines to face European targets, or does he believe that the Soviets probably have more than enough submarines with a missile capability, including the giant Typhoon class, in these waters already?

I do not want to speculate on the strength of the Soviet submarine fleet as currently deployed, but it is true that the Soviets have made substantial strides in updating their submarine capability by increasing the numbers, size and range of their submarines, so my hon. Friend's anxieties are not misplaced.

As the Soviet Union is launching a new submarine every 37 days, which reflects an increase in the building of submarines, may I ask whether we are matching this with an increase in our frigates or antisubmarine forces?

As my hon. Friend will recognise, one factor in the Government's policy for the frigates and destroyers in our fleet is to enhance their anti-submarine and anti-air missile capabilities. Although the number of ships in the fleet has remained at about 50 for some time, there has been a marked uprating in the capability of those ships with the latest type 22 and type 23 ships, which are much more capable than their predecessors.

Will the Minister tell the House truthfully how many of those so-called 50 destroyers and frigates in the fleet are operational?

Taking the figure of 49, which is today's number rather than Friday's, there are six currently in refit, and the remaining 43 are therefore available either immediately or within a short period.

As well over 100 Western seamen have now lost their lives in the Gulf and several million tonnes of Western shipping has been destroyed or damaged a t the cost of billions of dollars, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the cohesion and effectiveness of the total Western response in the Gulf? Is this not piracy in the 20th century, and is there not only one cure for piracy?

To answer the essence of my hon. Friend's question, I am satisfied that the Western presence has been coherent. I am sure that the presence of navies from the European members of NATO alongside those from the United States has led, after an initial period of exceptional activity, to greater stability at sea in that area. At the moment the land war is raging furiously, but I have no doubt that the co-operation between Western navies and their very presence in the area has contributed to that stability. Not only the British Navy but the other navies have played an important role in an area which is vital for the economy and stability of the whole world.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mine-laying vessels are currently in service with the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy has a large number of vessels which are currently capable of laying mines.

I understand that there is only one purpose-built mine layer in the British fleet. What is its age and when will it be replaced? It is incredible that we should enter into negotiations with our NATO partners on developing advanced mines when we do not even have any ships, except for that one, to lay them.

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, advanced mines are a long-term project. On the immediate position, I believe that he must be referring to the minelayer HMS Abdiel, which is over 20 years old. We have not felt it necessary to have a specialist replacement ship for mine laying, because mines can be laid by a wide variety of vessels. They can be laid by submarines, offshore patrol vessels, Royal Maritime auxiliary vessels, Royal Fleet auxiliaries and aircraft. The task can be done by any suitably modified vessel at short notice. We do not regard it as cost-effective to have a specialist ship for that replacement.

Can my hon. Friend say whether NATO has an agreed plan and strategy for the laying of mines and whether he has sufficient powers for the commandeering of merchant ships and other vessels and aircraft for that purpose, if the need were to arise?

I can assure my hon. Friend that NATO has confidential plans for these matters and that arrangements for taking out ships from trade are also available. I hope that such contingency plans will never have to be put into practice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many companies are now on the register of defence contractors; and what steps he is taking to increase this number.

In order to encourage the widest possible participation in Ministry of Defence work, we have introduced both the MOD contracts bulletin and the booklet "Selling to the MOD". Also, we attend "meet the buyer" exhibitions and we offer advice through the small firms division. Currently, there are about 9,000 companies on the defence contractors' list.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the increase in the number of companies on the register of defence contractors is assisting the Government in obtaining better value for money in fulfilling defence contracts?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It was gratifying that, in 1987, 3,780 applications for inclusion in the list were received, which represented an increase of 30 per cent. over the previous year. Over 45 per cent. more companies were accepted for inclusion in the list last year than in the previous year. This is making a major contribution to the Department's obtaining the best possible value for money in competitive procurement.

In the case of Marconi, a company on that list, may I have an assurance that if, and when, fraud is found in respect of its contracts with the Ministry of Defence, no deal will be done behind closed doors between Ministry of Defence officials and the company? Will the Minister confirm that those people found to be responsible for fraud will be prosecuted in the British courts?

I am sure that the House is by now well aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. I hope that he is also now well aware that the investigation currently under way is under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, therefore, is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the trend in the United States for increasing numbers of contracts to be placed in the service sector, whether in information technology, computers or even procurement, on behalf of the defence authority? Does he believe that there is an opportunity in this country to move in the same way and to put out to contract much of the task that is frequently tackled in-house?

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, contracts for services, like contracts for the supply of goods, can be subject to competition, and, wherever possible, we subject them to competition. In addition, where services provided in defence establishments can be provided more satisfactorily and economically by the private sector, we are prepared to put them out to contract, and we have an ongoing and successful programme in that respect.

Does the Minister accept that, given the increasing numbers of contractors, there is an urgent need for the proper supervision of contracts? The Minister talked down my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), although he gave the House proof of the absolute scandal of defence contractors ripping off the British taxpayer. It is about time that the Minister got to grips with these defence contractors and stopped this fraud.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I take as serious a view of any potential fraud as does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). We are anxious to ensure that no such fraud occurs. I hope he will agree that competitive contracting is one of the best ways of ensuring that the Ministry obtains value for money. As I have already pointed out, the matter to which the hon. Member for Workington referred is being investigated, and that investigation is now under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be up to him and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to decide what prosecutions, if any, should result.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the contracts where problems have arisen have been cost-plus contracts, many of which were inherited from the previous Labour Government, and that the changes in policy that have been brought about by the movement away from cost-plus contracts to tenders have cut out a great deal of the potential for fraud and brought about much better value for money?

My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, we inherited from the previous Government a large proportion of contracts which had been placed on a cost-plus basis and they were an invitation for potential overcharging. Indeed, since many Ministry of Defence contracts are of long duration they unfortunately take some considerable time to work through the system. I am glad to say that we have reduced the proportion of cost-plus contracts to a much lower proportion of the total than in 1979, and we seek to bring it down even further. That, combined with applying the shortest possible contract conditions, is making it much less likely that there will be a repetition of some of the unfortunate cases of the past.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to relocate defence resources to the north-west of England.

We are always prepared to consider relocating defence work to areas of high unemployment when it is justifiable on both operational and economic grounds. Indeed, I have recently approved a reorganisation of the Defence Industrial Pay Organisation, which will result in the transfer of about 60 jobs from Portsmouth to Cheadle Hulme.

Does the Minister agree that defence work should be relocated to the north-west, thus releasing high value land in the south-east, which would give the Minister's coffers a considerable budget? Is there a relocation policy in the Ministry of Defence?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the high land values in parts of London and the south-east. I hope he is well aware that many of the operational parts of the Ministry of Defence are located in the south-east because of long operational requirements. We are prepared to look at relocation to areas of high unemployment, but only where such relocation would be operationally effective and economically worth while.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best service that he could do for the north-west would be to encourage successful companies there, such as British Aerospace, Lucas Aerospace. Rolls-Royce and Royal Ordnance, to compete for available defence contracts?

My hon. Friend is right. The Ministry of Defence creates employment, not only by direct employment in its own establishments, but through the contracts that it places with British industry. I am conscious of the considerable contribution made to the Ministry of Defence by substantial contractors, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend, who have long-established traditions of being major suppliers to the Ministry of Defence and employ a large number of people, including skilled people, in the north-west.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to replace any of the Royal Air Force's hydrogen bombs with air-launched cruise missiles.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to replace any of the Royal Air Force's hydrogen bombs with air-launched cruise missiles.

No decisions on a replacement for the United Kingdom's free-fall nuclear bombs have yet been taken.

Are air-launched cruise missiles being considered by the Government as an option to replace the hydrogen bomb carried by the Tornado aircraft in the Royal Air Force? Is it not true that that decision is a consequence of the Montebello agreement and the decisions on modernisation? Is it therefore true that the article in The Guardian on 29 February is correct in saying that a decision has been taken to develop a new cruise missile — a new nuclear weapon — without Parliament being told?

The hon. Lady is wrong. No decisions have been made, but there are many options. The requirements of the United Kingdom and of other countries need to be considered, and it will be some time before a decision is made.

Further to that answer, will the Minister give the House an assurance that no decision will be made to develop a nuclear warhead at AWE Aldermaston for an air-launched cruise missile without a debate in the House? Is it not true that such a weapon, if carried on a plane, would take it within the range of the very INF missiles that have just been negotiated away? As the hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic about INF, surely the better thing to do would be to negotiate a ban on all air-launched missiles, instead of unilateral escalation.

I am glad that the hon. Lady shares my enthusiasm for the INF agreement, especially as she and her hon. Friends played such a part in trying to present its ever coming about.

If my hon. Friend and his colleagues want to update weapons without telling anyone, will they consult the Chevaline brigade?

The example of which my hon. Friend has reminded the House is just another aspect of the way in which the Labour party, even when in power, is entirely dishonourable about these matters.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tornado aircraft is a very expensive and sophisticated platform for the carrying of weapons systems, and that the pilot is trained at great expense? Is it not therefore essential that both pilot and aircraft are given the equipment that will meet the challenges and demands of the sophisticated Soviet equipment that they will have to face, and that a stand-off capability will have to be produced in the very near future?

I am sure my hon. Friend is right in saying that a stand-off capability of that kind is likely to be very important for the Royal Air Force and our allies for a number of years ahead. However, I join him in saying that the pilots of the Tornados are the most professional in the world. The RAF pilots of Tornados and other aircraft have no match, not only in NATO, but anywhere else. We rely on them for the strength and the degree of security that we possess, and we are grateful for that.

Is the Minister aware that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), repeatedly attacked any concept of the SLOvIs and air-launched cruise missiles, on the basis of the difficulty of verifying such weapons and the problems that would arise for the deal beyond the next deal? Is that still the Government's view, and are they still prepared to reject as an option any possibility of having air-launched cruise missiles as part of Britain's nuclear arsenal?

We think that we will need what is technically known as a TASM—a tactical air-to-surface missile—as a replacement for the free-fall bomb. I have no recollection of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) ever having spoken against that, because it has been the Government's policy for some considerable time to support that proposal, alongside our NATO colleagues.

May I emphasise as strongly as I can to my hon. Friend the importance of giving the Royal Air Force a stand-off capability as early as possible? The air defences of the Warsaw pact are improving greatly, and without such a capability British air crews would be lost unnecessarily were deterrence to fail.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Developments of this kind must take account of the threat of the Warsaw pact capability. My hon. Friend is right to state that the uprating of the Warsaw pact air defence capability means that we must bring our own forces up to date and not adopt the policy of non-modernisation, which appeals so much to the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for the introduction into service of the multiple-launch rocket system.

As my predecessor stated in answer to the hon. Gentleman on 5 June 1986, the contract for the European production of the multiple launch rocket system phase 1 was placed by Germany on behalf of the European partners in May 1986. The United Kingdom plans to introduce MLRS into service around the end of this decade.

Will MLRS be nuclear capable? Will the Minister assure the House today that neither nuclear nor chemical warheads will be fitted to MLRS? Does he accept that the system will cause verification problems in respect of both conventional and nuclear weapons, as it can use various warheads?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Warsaw pact has had similar systems that are chemically capable since the 1940s. The rockets planned for the MLRS are of several types of warhead. These include bomblets in phase 1, mines in phase 2, and guided sub-munitions for attack on armoured vehicles in phase 3.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many recruits joined the armed forces in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; what was the number of recruits actually needed for this period; and if he will make a statement.

In the 12 months ended 31 January 1988 the United Kingdom regular forces recruited 33,805 men and women. In 1986–87 recruitment reached 99 per cent. of the targets for officers and other ranks.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the sheer professionalism of our armed forces that makes the services so attractive to recruits? Does he agree that it is this, coupled with the good and realistic rates of pay since 1979, that has led to the satisfactory figures that he has been able to report this afternoon?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Government's pay policy, which has involved pay comparability for the armed forces, has been successful in recruitment. The record is excellent and is in stark contrast to the policy pursued by the Labour party.

Should not the figure of 33,000 recruits be placed in the context of almost 37,000 who left the armed services over the same period?

The reasons why officers and men leave the armed services vary greatly between those wishing to leave before the end of their term of engagement and those who reach the end of their engagement. Premature voluntary retirement rates — PVR rates — for all three services have been broadly stable for the last 18 months. They are still too high, but they are very much lower than the level reached under the previous Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is able to give a firm date when he expects production of the European fighter aircraft to commence in the United Kingdom.

Production of the European fighter aircraft is expected to commence in all four countries in the early 1990s, subject to international agreement to the launch of the intervening phases.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he assure the House that he is aware of the fact that an American team is in this country trying to sell Britain an updated version of one of its fighter aircraft? Can he assure the House that he recognises how important it is to British industry that the European fighter aircraft goes ahead?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the importance of the European fighter aircraft to British industry. It is only to be expected that in the runup to such a major procurement decision there will be intense lobbying from rival aerospace camps. I am confident that the case for the European fighter aircraft will prove sufficiently robust to withstand comparison with all the alternative options, including the updated F18.

Should we not be concentrating resources on civilian aircraft production instead of embarking on another massive expenditure such as the Tornado, the biggest peacetime expenditure in the history of this country? Why do we need to spend all this money on these massively sophisticated aircraft, which seem to keep falling out of the sky, at enormous cost as well? Would it not be better to get a licence for single-seater Cessna production from the United States, as this seems to be the type of aircraft that can get to Red Square, if that is what the hon. Gentleman wants.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, like most hon. Members, attach high importance to the protection of United Kingdom air space. I can assure him that the European fighter aircraft will be a very effective and substantial contribution to that protection.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and I also attended the launch of the Tidy Britain Group's litter initiative. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Kuwait. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Has the Prime Minister read the report in The Daily Telegraph today which states that St. Thomas hospital, just across the river, is to close another 200 beds, and that that is in addition to the 137 beds closed less than five months ago? How much longer is this appalling attack on the Health Service to go on? Will the Prime Minister give me a straight answer and not read out that long list of statistics.

I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not want the long list of statistics which prove how very much more is being spent on the Health Service and how very many more nurses and doctors there are now. Like other hospitals, St. Thomas has to live within a budget. Many hospitals live within a budget, but some do not. We are entitled to ask why some do and others do not. With regard to provision in Greater London as a whole, in spite of the increased allocations of money to other regions in preference to London, London has received an increase in real terms.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy programme today to commend the immense efforts by the AEU—the Amalgamated Engineering Union—to try to gain agreement to attract Ford to Dundee? Does she agree that the vote taken earlier today in the STUC was, sadly, too little, too divided and too late? Will she make it absolutely clear that ordinary trade unionists in Scotland are appalled by what has happened, in marked contrast to the deathly silence and total inactivity by the best-known TGWU-sponsored Member of Parliament in the House?

I share the view of my hon. Friend and agree with what he said about the great efforts of the engineering union to come into the 20th century and to take the requisite action, which would have persuaded Ford to give these much-needed jobs to Dundee. I condemn, with my hon. Friend, the attitudes of other unions which are more interested in their own sectional interests and in demarcation than in winning the jobs for Dundee, and one condemns the attitude of the Labour party which, over five months, did little to bring the other unions into the 20th century.

The Prime Minister knows that only yesterday an all-party delegation from Dundee successfully lobbied the TUC to support a deal which might yet bring Ford to Dundee. Dundee still has a fighting chance, particularly as Mr. John Emmert, the spokesman for Ford, has said that no decision has yet been taken on the location of the plant. In those circumstances, may I call upon the Prime Minister, and those on the Benches behind her, to stop trying to score petty party political points— [Interruption]—and to stop playing politics with Dundee's jobs?

The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the unions, which, after five months, have been unable to come to a reasonable agreement, and even now are split. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the words of Gavin Laird, set out in The Sunday Times:

"After five months"

"has run out. Dundee has lost 1,000 jobs but the trade union movement has lost much, much more. Once again, we"

"appear to be a destructive force in British society, ignorant, disunited and living in the past."

Will my right hon. Friend, or her right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, draw the attention of the broadcasting authorities to section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, under which it is an offence to withhold information of material assistance in bringing terrorists to justice—or are they above the law?

I believe that everyone, the media included, has a bounden duty to do everything that he can to see that those who perpetrated the terrible crimes that we saw on television and that disgusted the whole world are brought to justice. Either one is on the side of justice in these matters, or one is on the side of terrorism.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the most crucial change that is needed in the National Health Service is to acknowledge patients' rights to treatment within a given period of time? If that means that they may have to go to an alternative health authority, they should be entitled to do so and their own health authority should have to pay for the necessary treatment.

I agree with the kind of formula that the hon. Lady enunciated in her question. We must make it easier for patients to go from one health authority to another. At the moment the requisite money is a long time in coming and the amount that has to be calculated is not altogether clear. We are trying to move in the direction where the money moves with the patient to the hospital that carries out the operation. The hon. Lady will know that we have just allocated an extra £30 million, which it is hoped will enable about 100,000 additional operations to be carried out, thereby reducing the waiting lists.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the weekend a crime took place that was almost unique in its evil and wickedness? Is it not a fact that we have the right to control the number of demonstrators who go to funerals? These funerals have become, not a day of mourning, but a day of death. Is it not right that we should limit the number of people who go to a funeral to 50 without the Secretary of Stare's specific permission? The killing of people is no part of mourning or of death.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, together with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will consider these matters, but there is another factor. There was a terrible crime, there were many, many witnesses, and expressions of revulsion and condemnation are not enough. The acid test is whether all those who expressed them—all constitutional parties and those members of the Church who have expressed revulsion — will go to the Republican areas in Northern Ireland and urge those who know who perpetrated these crimes, or who know where to find them, to co-operate with the police in every single matter. Mere expressions of sympathy and condemnation are not enough. It is what people do which tells us whether they are really determined to root out terrorism.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Kinnock.

May I first welcome the approach that the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable are taking, and the reappraisal which the Government are prepared to make of the approach that they are taking in Northern Ireland? I am sure that the right hon. Lady will carry full support for that aspect of her policy.

I take the view that the economy is being superlatively handled by the entire Government, that it has led to growth far greater than that in any other European country without the emergence of inflation, and I am not prepared to take lectures from anyone who was in a Government who saw devaluation, inflation and economic decline.

Is it not the case that while under this Government we have lost 20 per cent. of our world trade share, under the last Labour Government we gained 13 per cent. in world trade share? On the subject of inflation and the Prime Minister's refusal to answer the previous question, may I ask whether she is saying that the pound should be allowed to go higher, in the hope that it will bring inflation lower?

I am suggesting that the economy be continued under the excellent management of the Government, which has had such marvellous results and which, if the trade unions would come into the 20th century, would have even better results.

That is still no reply to the question about the Chancellor and Lord Y oung—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Kinnock.

We still have not had a reply to the question about the difference between the Chancellor and Lord Young, which is rather fundamental. If the Prime Minister agrees with Lord Young and is now against intervention, why did the Government allow $21 billion to be spent in the period before 4 March to try to stabilise the pound?

The right hon. Gentleman goes on and on because he has not got a single thing to say: no criticism of the economy, and he votes to increase taxation, knowing full well that it is the reduction in taxation that has led to the growth that has led to the higher standard of living and the higher standard of social services. He is against the whole lot.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while terrorists abuse the law, they always expect the full protection of that law? Will she at least consider amending the law to resuscitate the status of outlaw and therefore remove the full protection of the law from certain specific terrorist organisations and their members?

As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a Prevention of Terrorism Act, which we on the Government side vote for and support. It gives the police certain powers against terrorism, which has helped them very much in apprehending terrorists, sometimes before they have committed a crime, and sometimes in enabling others to be excluded. My right hon. Friend will be considering whether anything further needs to be done.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

Does the right hon. Lady accept the words of her noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, that in recent European power station negotiations nothing was further from his mind than privatisation? Or is it not rather the case that the Dutch Minister, Mr. Nijpels, was right when he accused the British of diktat and of obstructing the cleaning up of the air over Europe?

No, that is not correct, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. We have a large programme for the large power stations, where most coal is burnt, and we were protesting against having to spend a great deal of money on smaller power stations, which are responsible for only 2 per cent. of the sulphur emissions, which would have been very expensive. I advise those who criticised us to realise that we have the second biggest programme in the whole of Europe for reducing sulphur emissions from power stations.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following the so-called Moonie case, there is widespread concern over the definition of what may or may not be a bona fide charity? In view of the major contribution of charities to the benefit of others, is it not time to consider a statutory definition of charities?

As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a review of charities and of the definition. As he is also aware, it is easier to analyse the problem than it is to find a satisfactory redefinition of charities, but we shall nevertheless try to do that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are facing this evening's debate and discussion on a large number of new clauses and amendments before the House in a limited time. May I have your procedural guidance as to how the discussion will proceed? Will it be that we shall follow each line of new clauses or amendments as on the Order Paper and does that not mean, therefore, that a great many new clauses and amendments will not be reached? My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and I have tabled new clauses on the important question of discipline in schools, including consideration of the restoration of corporal punishment at a period of extreme indiscipline in some schools. Will we have to decide whether to seek to move those new clauses without any discussion, or will we be able to contribute to the debate on the cluster of new clauses with which our new clauses are grouped?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps when you come to reply to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) you might wish to invite him to say whether he voted for the guillotine motion on 1 February and, if he did, to suggest that he has been hoist on his own petard, because all the consequences to which he has referred flow directly from the guillotine motion which I think he voted for and which Opposition Members voted against, precisely because we thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to have an opportunity to discuss the Bill fully.

rose—

Order. We cannot have a debate on this. I can answer the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). We shall proceed in the order of the selection on the Order Paper. The guillotine falls at 6 o'clock, 8.45 pm and again at 10 o'clock. If we get on, it is possible that the new clause of the hon. Member for Ealing, North will be reached. However, that will not happen if we have lots of points of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are considering this evening not only a long Bill — it must be one of the longest we have ever considered — but a complex one. It is one of the most botched-up hastily assembled Bills that I suspect has ever been on the Floor of the House. Time and again when we were considering the Bill in Committee, the Government presented us at the last minute with a series of amendments and ill-prepared texts. On Friday, not only were we asked to consider amendments tabled after the time in which Government new clauses could be amended but some of the amendments, masquerading as Government amendments, were in the name of Mr. Stanley Baker and there is no Member of that name in the House.

"Page 7, line 35 [Clause 7]"

I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and say something about it when I have done so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. New clause 62, standing in my name, and the new clauses standing in the names of Welsh nationalist Members and other Opposition Members, have not been selected. Will it be possible to debate the new clauses that have not been selected in the final group of new clauses?

I cannot alter my selection. We are under a guillotine motion and we must get on. We stand no chance of getting to the new clauses tabled by Back Benchers if points of order continue. In order to get to those new clauses, we should now get on with the Government new clauses, which come first.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to your advice, and to what the Opposition have said, and I voted for the guillotine, but the way in which the timetable has been operated means that only an hour and a quarter has been given to a substantial series of new clauses. Great interest has been exhibited in new clauses 30 and 31 which, as you properly remind me, Sir, are Back Benchers' clauses. Recalling that when you were elected to your august office you declared your intention of safeguarding the interests of Back Benchers, it seems unfortunate that we may not reach new clauses 30 and 31, which deal with an important matter—corporal punishment in schools.

The Business Committee has considered this matter and a few moments ago the House passed the resolution of the Business Committee. I am bound by that order of the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you explain to the hon.' Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) that his failure to have new clauses 30 and 31 on the flogging and beating of children discussed arises from two consequences of his actions? One was to vote for the guillotine motion that has curtailed the debate; and the second was his failure to get in the two new clauses before the Opposition.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that many Conservative Members have not the faintest idea what the guillotine is. They are now trying to go back on it and have new matters included. They are so ignorant about it that they thought they had set up a guillotine in New Palace Yard and put the Opposition on it. They do not know what they are doing.