To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the time scale for deploying new tactical air-to-surface missiles under the Montebello decision.

The agreement by NATO Defence Ministers at Montebello in 1983 did not include specific decisions on such matters. SACEUR was asked to come forward with specific proposals, which were presented to Ministers in 1985. All these continue to be discussed with the individual nations concerned. The time scale associated with the deployment of new systems will depend in the first instance on the choice of system and on development and production decisions which have yet to be taken.

Did not the Minister, in a written answer on 21 March, admit that the decision for tactical air-to-surface missiles was taken at, and dates from, the Montebello agreement? Will the Minister continue his confessions to agree that those missiles will carry nuclear warheads? Will he further agree that the carrying of those missiles by aircraft is an escalation and that, in a reply to me on 21 January, when I pointed out that the most likely form of tactical weapons would he air-launched cruise, he said that I was grossly misinformed?

Order. The hon. Lady must ask her question.

There was a recommendation in principle from the Montebello meeting to consider those matters and, as I said in my answer, they are being considered.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given, particularly, the continuing modernisation of the Soviet nuclear and conventional capabilities, it remains essential that we continue to improve our capabilities in accordance with the Montebello decision?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am sure he will be well aware that the Soviet Union has vigorously been updating its equipment. For instance, longer-range, more accurate SS21 missiles are being brought into service, dual-capable aircraft are being modernised the build-up of Backfire bombers continues and short-range, stand-off nuclear weapons are also being deployed, so it is hardly an option that we can ignore.

The Secretary of State will recall that when NATO last embarked on its modernisation proposals it led to the deployment of cruise missiles. It also adopted a dual-track system whereby modernisation took place at the same time as negotiations. If NATO has decided in principle to modernise tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons—we hope that it has not and will not do so—why not follow the same principle as last time and, if it is necessary to modernise, why not modernise at the same time as negotiating, especially as the Soviet Union appears to have a superiority in tactical and battlefield nuclear weapons?

It is extraordinary for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we should not modernise our existing weapons because—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.. If he did not say that, perhaps he will intervene in a moment to say that he did not, but, as I understood him, he said that those weapons should not be modernised, which means that we would have out-of-date weapons. I see no argument for having out-of-date weapons.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to privatise any of the services of the Meteorological Office; and if he will make a statement.

The Meteorological Office is a candidate for agency status within the Ministry of Defence. In the process of reaching decisions on its future operating framework we shall consider whether any of its current activities might be carried out more appropriately in the private sector.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the collection of meteorological data is a monopoly, interpretation of that data certainly is not? Does he agree also that the Meteorological Office could well benefit from being placed in the same position as a range of organisations, from insurance companies to racing tipsters, in having to base the reliability of current forecasts on past performance? Does my hon. Friend agree that, at the very least, something must be done about the office's appalling service to the public over the Easter break?

I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates that meteorology is an inexact science which must deal with extremely difficult and complex data. The Meteorological Office is not a monopoly in the sense that it keeps to itself all the data that it collects. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the collection of that data is an expensive business and, if the data are to be made available to commercial organisations, that should be done on a commercial basis.

As the Government have been afflicted by privatisation madness, can the Minister assure us that the Government have no intention of privatising the armed forces?

I do not think that that matter arises out of a question on the Metereological Office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of United States forces stationed in Britain; and how many bases they have.

There are usually around 30,000 United States service personnel in the United Kingdom. We currently make available 66 bases and facilities for United States forces in this country, the majority of which are small support facilities.

Is the Minister aware that the recent publication "Over Here", produced by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, lists 157 such bases, not 66 that the hon. Gentleman mentioned? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that this army of occupation of 30,000 personnel is not spying on any British citizens or political activities in this country? Will the hon. Gentleman further assure— [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must keep his gestures to himself.

Will the Minister further assure the House that the British Government have complete control over all activities in United States bases and that they will not allow those forces to deny civil liberties to people demonstrating outside them or to those who observe cruise missiles while they are touring around this country? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House that it is time for the United States forces to leave this country and stop harassing British citizens and making Britain a nuclear aircraft carrier for the Pentagon?

Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman and many of his friends in the Labour party think, the presence of United States bases in this country is the surest guarantee of American support for European defence. As for the publications of CND, the activities of that body tend to be highly misleading and inaccurate and it sounds as though this latest one is no exception.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that our friends and allies the Americans are here very much at our invitation and that we have every confidence in their activities in this country in joining us in defending not only the United Kingdom but NATO and all our other allies?

Yes, indeed. I warmly support what my hon. Friend has said. The removal of American bases from the United Kingdom would put at risk the whole basis of the United States commitment to the defence of Europe. I cannot think of anything more damaging for the security of this country or our Western allies than what Opposition Members propose.

How many United States civilian personnel are attached to support services to the 66 bases?

I mentioned about 30,000 United States service personnel. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman even an approximate figure for non-service personnel, but if he tables a question on those lines I shall see what information I can give him.

Order. I appeal for short and single questions, rather than catalogues, which take a lot of time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have been redeployed away from London and the south-east since 1983.

Between July 1983 and July 1987 the proportion of service personnel in the United Kingdom deployed outside London and the south-east rose from 61 to 62 per cent.

I accept that the operational efficiency of the forces must always come first, but will my hon. Friend look at ways of increasing the number of civilian and office staff that are transferred away from the south-east? Does he agree that such a transfer would bring savings in salaries and costs and would help recruitment? If that involved the sale of property in the south-east, my hon. Friend could make a profit for his Department.

I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. It is relevant to note that by the end of this year about 1,400 civilian posts will have been deployed to Glasgow, and of that number 1,000 will have been employed locally.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy of concentrating military forces in a few selected areas is not a good one for the long-term future of ensuring that the armed forces not only protect the community but are part of it, over as wide an area as possible—not just a few areas?

I agree. However, one must bear in mind operational constraints, in the sense that many of the Army units in the south-east of England in and around London are for the reinforcement of the British Army of the Rhine, so the closer they are to Germany, the better.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on improvements to the offset arrangements on the contract to buy the AWACS early warning system from the United States of America.

The Boeing company has every intention of fulfilling the contractual undertaking on the AWACS offset programme. My Department keeps in close touch with the company on the detail of the arrangements.

I am sure the Secretary of State remembers that when he made his announcement to the House in December 1986 he said that for every £100 we spend on Boeing's E3A, £130 would be spent in contracts to British companies. Given that Plessey has said that rather than having had an expected £150 million worth of contracts in the first year it has had less than 1 per cent. of that, is not the faith of the Ministry of Defence somewhat misplaced, and were not the warnings from Opposition parties that that offset agreement should be contractually binding the correct judgment at the time?

The offset agreement is contractually binding. The Boeing company has undertaken under contract to provide 130 per cent. of the value of the AWACS deal in work for British firms that have to compete for that business. Boeing has every intention of fulfilling that undertaking, and has set up an office in London to ensure that it does.

Is it not true that British companies, even on offset deals, must put forward competitively priced tenders? As we have seen the Ptarmigan problems, is my right hon. Friend convinced that British companies are not merely taking things for granted but are genuinely putting forward competitively priced efforts to win these offset deals? If they are not, there will be wide repercussions for our purchasing in this country.

My hon. Friend is correct. I believe that British companies are well aware that that is what they must do. Many of them are doing so, and the more widely this can be publicised the better.

Did we not receive similar contractual commitments in respect of Trident and star wars? How much work and how many jobs resulted from them? The right hon. Gentleman goes on expressing faith in Boeing, but I was in Seattle in January and I must tell him that although I cannot be as close to Boeing as he must be— necessarily—I was in the presence of one of his hon. Friends there. Neither of us received by any means the same assurances for which he is presumably prepared to settle. How many jobs have been created so far as a result of this offset, and how many does the Secretary of State expect?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, those comparisons are not correct, because in neither the Trident programme nor the SDI programme is there an offset agreement. On the main previous occasion when Boeing had an offset agreement with Britain—involving the purchase of helicopters—it more than fulfilled its undertaking. That is what it intends to do this time.

Will my right hon. Friend state the total value of offset contracts for the AWACS programme so far placed in Britain?

The total that we have received from Boeing is a listing of contracts worth $141 million. We are still evaluating its report, but hope to make a fuller statement in the near future.

The Secretary of State knows very well that he told the House that, as an integral part of the Boeing deal, more than 4,000 jobs would be created as a result of offset agreements and that contracts worth £1·5 billion would be placed here. He now tells us that the total value of contracts is just over £100 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, dollars."] It was $141 million, so it is probably not much over £100 million. Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of that? The Under-Secretary of State said in reply to a question on 9 December:

"Any breach of the agreement would therefore constitute a breach of the contract and … the Government would have recourse to English law in respect of any perceived damages. —[Official Report, 9 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 214.]

I honestly think that, in the accepted language of these days, this is much ado about nothing. The agreement is exactly the same as it originally was. In other words, 130 per cent. of the value of the AWACS contract has been undertaken to be provided in offset agreements. That is how it is expressed and that is how it will be carried out. The figures that I have quoted cover the first six months. As the whole period lasts for eight years, and as Boeing is contractually committed to giving us the work, there is no reason to think that the agreement is not proceeding extremely satisfactorily and will not be fully met.

Jobs would flow if the surplus Nimrod airborne early warning airframes were adapted to other uses. Is my right hon. Friend able to say what has happened?

We are examining what other uses can be found for the surplus Nimrod airframes, but we are not yet able to make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the implications of the Military Land Act 1892 for rights of passage on common land at or near defence establishments.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the implications of the Military Land Act 1892 for rights of passage on common land at or near defence establishments.

In the past 10 years, when making new military byelaws under the Military Land Act 1892, the Secretary of State has received four representations that the proposed byelaws could prejudice rights of way on common land and 11 representations that they would prejudice rights of common.

Is it not the case that, during those years, the Government have broken the law and encouraged the arrest—and imprisonment in some cases—of several thousand people at Greenham Common and on Salisbury Plain? If the Conservative party is to masquerade as the party of law and order, why do the Government not do the decent thing and acknowledge that fact in the courts? Moreover, perhaps the Minister could ask the Secretary of State for Defence to resign in view of this carry-on.

I have no intention of asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to resign. The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the decision of the Reading Crown court about byelaws at Greenham Common. That decision, which the Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against, has nothing whatever to do with rights of way. It is to do with the rights of specific commoners. Byelaws affecting Greenham Common were introduced in 1985 for the proper reason of protecting the integrity of the base.

Is it not clear that before 1979 the Military Land Act 1892—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] That is right. Unlike Conservative Members, I can read. Is it not quite clear that since the Government came into office they have been concerned only with stopping democratic protests by ordinary people, including the women of Greenham Common? Would it not be wise for the Government to do the sensible thing—wind up that base, get rid of it and give back the land as common land for ordinary people?

We have not been stopping the rights of individuals to protest democratically. The 300 byelaws, in particular those at Greenham common, prevent illegal trespass on to the base. In no way do they stop the right of democratic protest. Hon. Members who encourage people to enter the base do so on their own responsibility. Those who enter the base at Greenham Common will be apprehended and removed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the time scale for deploying new dual capable aircraft under the Montebello decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the time scale for deploying new dual capable aircraft under the Montebello decision.

As I said earlier, the agreement by NATO Defence Ministers at Montebello in 1983 did not include specific decisions on such matters.

The Secretary of State will be aware that I had correspondence with the Prime Minister and with Lord Trefgarne during the period leading up to the last general election. I was told constantly that no specific proposals had been made at Montebello and that the Government could not speculate on a situation that may not even arise. On a visit to the United States I was informed by people at the Pentagon that the decision was taken at Montebello. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) was informed in a written answer on 21 March that a decision was taken at Montebello. Therefore, is not the Secretary of State being dual-capable with the truth? Does he not realise that a Gallup poll published today shows that 65 per cent. of the British people are in favour of negotiating and only 21 per cent. are in favour of modernisation?

I should have thought that virtually 100 per cent. of the British people were in favour of negotiations, which the Government are pursuing successfully. It remains the case that no specific proposals were put forward at Montebello. Only general requirements were put forward. We await specific proposals, and when they arrive we shall have to consider them.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is already a substantial imbalance in the number of aircraft in NATO's favour? Does it not make sense to correct that imbalance by including them in the conventional arms talks and the parallel talks to be set against Warsaw pact imbalances?

I do not agree with that at all. In fact, the Soviet Union is rapidly building up its dual capable aircraft. We would be foolish to stop doing the same and not to keep them up to date.

rose— [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) must not carry on conversations across the Chamber.

Most people have never flown aeroplanes. They know nothing about them and ought not to be listened to.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition's doctrine seems to be that we should have out-of-date and ineffective weapons. I can see no argument for that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the success of both the negotiations to which he referred in earlier answers and the INF treaty, it is imperative that we modernise our shorter-range weapons to guarantee flexible response, which is central to NATO policy?

My hon. Friend is correct. If proof were needed, the experience of the last three years shows conclusively that, provided we keep our weapons systems up to date and negotiate with the super-powers for reductions in armaments, we can brillantly succeed in doing that. And that is what has happened.

Will the Secretary of State now answer the question? He says that he is 100 per cent. in favour of modernisation and negotiation. If he wants to modernise, why not negotiate at the same time? If the dual-track arrangement was so successful, why not try it again for battlefield and tactical nuclear weapons? Since the Soviet Union has a superiority, why not modernise and negotiate at the same time?

Simply because the priorities in the continued negotiations for reductions in weapons, to which we are committed, are to reduce the strategic systems, to have a worldwide ban on chemical weapons and to tackle the conventional imbalance. Those are the main priorities that threaten our security and the best ones for which we should try to achieve reductions.

Is this not a totally spurious issue? Did not the Labour party, in the bad old days when it was in office, have a consistent record of introducing new, dual-capable aircraft into service, such as the Canberra, the Jaguar and the Tornado?

Yes, my hon. Friend is perfectly correct. I understand that the Tornado was devised originally by a Labour Government. It is a pity that the present Labour Opposition do not have such a responsible attitude as their predecessors.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the increase in the cost of the pressurised water reactor for the Trident submarine; and what are the implications for the total cost of the Trident project.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the increase in the cost of the pressurised water reactor for the Trident submarine; and what are the implications for the total cost of the Trident project.

There has been no increase for some time in the estimate of cost for the pressurised water reactor for Vanguard class submarines and none is expected.

Is not the Secretary of State not concerned about the widespread suspicion that the Government are concealing the true cost of Trident and that many believe that its true cost is now running at more than £11,000 million, which represents £30,000 a day over the next 1,000 years? Does the Secretary of State not recognise that many of my constituents, who face big cuts in National Health Service facilities, would much prefer to see taxpayers' money put into the National Health Service to rebuild it rather than that this enormous amount of money should be spent on Trident? If Trident is so popular and so important, why do the Government not establish a national lottery to pay for it and scrap the one that they are planning for the National Health Service?

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets his facts from. We have substantially reduced the cost of the Trident programme. In particular, there has been a reduction of no less than £376 million—a real reduction —according to the most recent calculations. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents would be very pleased about that. Expenditure on the National Health Service is very much greater than that on defence, and that is probably quite right, but the presence of nuclear weapons, if they maintain our security, is an essential prerequisite for the National Health Service to operate at all.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's prime duty is the defence of the realm and that at a time of less obvious threat the Government must never let weakness be the cause of war? Will he therefore confirm his commitment to Trident—that it is a form of insurance, and almost cheap at the price?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's assessment of the position. It is worth noticing that this Government's extremely successful economic record is enabling us both to afford adequate defence and to give increased funds to the National Health Service.

If the Secretary of State wants information on the costing of submarine systems, I suggest that one of the best places to look is on the beach at Helensburgh, near the Clyde submarine base. Has he made any representations to the United States military authorities about that subject, or has he received any representations from them?

I have had no complaints of that sort, but the Trident programme is creating a very large number of jobs in the Dunbartonshire area, and I am sure that very many people and their families appreciate that fact.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on new measures taken by the procurement executive of his Department following publication of the report, "Learning from Experience" concerning overspending on defence contracts.

The report "Learning from Experience" acknowledged the many improvements that have been made in procurement procedures in recent years and highlighted the importance of adherence to these procedures. With regard to new measures, a key recommendation—that the chief of defence procurement should extend his central scrutiny of projects to include technical issues—has already been implemented. Implementation of other measures is under way.

After the quite abysmal waste of public money revealed by that report and other reports from the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Defence, is it not absolutely essential that Mr. Levene should be given the power to hire and fire the best commercial brains in order to bring these costs under control?

I can tell my hon. Friend that although the PAC looks at projects that have caused problems, not all the stories are of failure. 'There is an increasing number of success stories as a result of the new procedures that we have implemented and of Mr. Levene's work. Three recent examples are 3D radar—long-range air defence—new bridging for the 1990s, and a submarine electronic surveillance system. Those are all recent contracts with an aggregate value of more than £400 million; a saving against the expected budget price of more than £100 million.

Is it not the case that on a number of occasions the Ministry of Defence has been required to reduce the standard of its specification for a weapons system to meet what the contractor could actually provide? What extra steps are being taken to strengthen the ability of his Department to test the claims of a contractor before a contract is placed?

As the report brought out, in arriving at a satisfactory production contract it is important to observe the correct procedures in determining what can be achieved and to ensure that there is a precise specification. One of the lessons of "Learning from Experience" is the importance of adhering to those procedures. On a number of occasions when things have gone wrong it was because production was entered into before capability had been accurately determined. That was the main cause of the problem.

My hon. Friend has given an excellent reply in terms of ensuring that the procurement executive is close to development. Does that mean that the thought of moving the sea systems controllerate away from the research establishments is now further from his mind?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we are examining the implications and any advantages that might arise from the co-location of those parts of the sea systems controllerate that are presently at three or four different locations. No recommendation has been made to Ministers at this stage.

Why has it taken the Government nine years and four Secretaries of State to wake up to what has been called by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) an "abysmal waste"? Would a fraction of that waste have been tolerated in other aspects of public service, still less in a grocery chain?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that if a contract has been entered into after perhaps rushing the procedures, or without competition, it takes some time to get it back on the rails. Most of the contracts giving rise to the kinds of problems to which my hon. Friend referred earlier are those which were entered into by the last Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial resources are devoted by his Department towards the running of cadet organisations.

The Ministry of Defence devotes approximately £33 million towards the cost of running the four cadet organisations; the Army Cadet Force, the Combined Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and the Sea Cadet Corps—which total approximately 140,000 cadets. That sum covers the cost of accommodation, staffing, travel, administration and training.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cadet forces he mentioned are most important to this country, not only as youth organisations, but as the future basis for recruitment into the services? Can he assure me that the Air Training Corps will have sufficient resources in the coming year to give as much gliding practice as possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the value of the training corps for recruitment, to say nothing of the social benefits to the country of the cadet organisations. One third of all officers in the regular forces have served with the cadet organisations. As for the Air Training Corps, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks on both gliding and travel arrangements.

Is it true that the Minister's Department is currently examining a form of national service?

No.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cadet forces give young people unrivalled oppor-tunities for comradeship, discipline, adventure and training in leadership? Can he say how many girls or young ladies, as well as boys and young men, benefit from those opportunities?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the sense of adventure and self-reliance, and the training for playing a useful part in society, that are provided in the cadet forces. About one third of the members of the Air Training Corps are girls.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of frigates and destroyers currently operationally available to fulfil the United Kingdom's commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

There are currently 49 destroyers and frigates in service with the Fleet, of which 42 are available for operational deployment immediately or within a short period. A number of these ships are at present outside the NATO area, but could be recalled in the event of an emergency.

Would the Minister care to inform the House whether he includes in those 42 the ships now deployed in the Armilla patrol? In view of their sparse numbers, will he give some indicaton of when the Government will order the next batch of type 23s? It is important to shipbuilding yards in the Clyde and elsewhere that those orders are placed.

The Government appreciate the importance of the orders that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. He will know that we have received tenders for up to four new type 23s, which are currently being evaluated. An announcement will be made at the proper time.

What would be the effect on the defence capabilities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation if the ports of Northern Ireland were no longer available to NATO's vessels?

The effectiveness of the defence of Western Europe depends on the availability of as many ports and bases as possible. I would not want to think that the proposition that the hon. Gentleman has put forward needs be taken into account in practice.

Is the Minister aware that the chaos in procurement, which is resulting in the beggaring of many of the yards that should be providing type 23 frigates and others, is evidence of the total disarray in which the Government's naval planning now rests, because of the burden that has to be carried by the rest of the Fleet to finance the Trident project?

No, Sir. I absolutely disagree. We already have as many as eight destroyers and frigates under construction, and we expect to continue ordering to maintain the figure of around 50 frigates in our Fleet. I dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what greater roles he expects women to play in the services in the light of the declining pool of available young men eligible to join up.

It has been the policy of successive Governments that women in the armed forces should not be employed in direct combat roles. However, women are being increasingly employed in technical roles, as well as in support and administrative areas where they have traditionally been employed. We intend to expand these opportunities wherever practicable.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Will he give further consideration to allowing women to train as pilots?

No, Sir. We have no plans to use women in combat, at least in the military sense.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of current contracts to build frigates; and how many jobs are involved.

Four type 22 and four type 23 frigates are currently in various stages of construction. Precise costs are commercially confidential, but the total value of those orders is in excess of £1 billion. Each frigate directly employees about 1,200 men in the shipyard over its three to four-year build programme. In addition, at least twice that number will be employed elsewhere over the same period producing the weapons and equipment to be fitted in the ship.

Will the Minister tell the House how many jobs will be lost in Swan Hunter, Yarrow and Cammell Laird if he refuses to order in full in this financial year the four frigates that are desperately required by the Navy, and has he decided which yards will close if he does so?

We are currently awaiting the best and final offers to the invitations to tender which we issued earlier and to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces referred in a recent answer. Clearly, we shall want to place the orders in the light of those tenders to give the Navy the best possible value for money.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of Zimbabwe. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how delighted the nurses are at the recent pay award? Does she agree with the nurses at the Charing Cross hospital who were telling me at the weekend that they thought it would go a long way towards improving recruitment and that nurses' morale was greatly improved as a result of the Government's decision to implement the award in full?

Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. The award in full to nurses, doctors, dentists and professions allied to medicine has been widely welcomed. It means that we shall be able to recruit more nurses in areas where there were shortages, such as paediatric nursing and intensive care units, and that nurses will be getting about 44 per cent. in real terms above what they were getting in 1979, and doctors about 30 per cent. extra in real terms. It is a good award for those who work in the Health Service, and it is good for the patients.

Two weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister whether she would amend the social security regulations to restore housing benefit and help with rates. She then replied, "No, Sir." Today, I ask her the same question. Does she give the same answer?

We are spending far more on housing benefit now that ever was the case during the life of the previous Labour Government. We have reformed the fundamental structure. The fundamental reform was correct.

Why is the Prime Minister unable to answer the question? She knows that she has been wrong. She knows that she has done wrong. Why does she stand on her dignity instead of doing what she can to help others to maintain their dignity? We know that she must make changes. Why does she not just get on with it and not unnecessarily prolong the anxiety and the hardship which hundreds of thousands of people in Britain are now suffering? The two weeks since I asked her that question might be a short time in politics, but it has already been a long time for those in poverty and in worry.

We do not stand on dignity. We in fact provide more resources—more cash—because the economy run by this Government has enabled us to provide more resources for housing benefit, social security reform and the Health Service. If we went back to the previous Labour Government we would have to cut the social services, housing benefit, the Health Service and nurses' and doctors' pay. I am sure that not even the right hon. Gentleman would want that.

May I ask the Prime Minister for a straight answer? Will she now amend the housing benefit social security regulations? I ask her on behalf of people in every constituency, on behalf of her hon. Friends and on behalf of the whole humane instinct of the people of this country.

The system was badly in need of reform. The substantial structure will, of course, stay.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to make it clear that it is totally unacceptable for picketing to turn into blockade and that those who want to go to work have the right to do so and will be fully protected from violence and intimidation?

The only right to picket is a right to peaceful picketing. Any violence is a criminal matter and people who resort to it must expect to be dealt with accordingly by the prosecuting authorities and by the courts. It is a sad day when trade unionism has come to the amount of violence which we sometimes see on picket lines.

Will the Prime Minister confirm—Mr. Speaker not having certified the Local Government Finance Bill as a money Bill—that it would be entirely within their Lordships' constitutional right to seek to amend and improve the operation of the poll tax as contained in the Bill? Will she further accept that the more the poll tax is understood by the public, as well as by parliamentarians, the more unacceptable it has become? Their Lordships would be performing a public service by sending the whole thing back here for reconsideration.

The matter of the constitution is not only for me; it is for their Lordships' House and for Mr. Speaker. It is for them to decide, and they have rules which must govern the decisions. It is not a matter for me.

Now that the Local Government Finance Bill—the flagship of our programme— [Interruption.]

Order.

—has navigated safely through this House, will my right hon. Friend look again at the arguments for the central financing of education, now that we have a national curriculum, national tests, and are funding centrally schools that opt out of the system?

I think that that would mean wholly central control of education. There is no way in which a Department of Education and Science could administer the education system. The laws were set in the 1944 Education Act—and have been amended since—within which local authorities have to pursue their duties. Having been a Secretary of State for Education and Science, I do not think that the Department of Education and Science could ever run education centrally; nor do I think that it would be desirable that it should do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister advise me on how I can assist one of my constituents, a lady who has an income of £76 a week, and who has, as a result of these changes, lost £11 per week in housing benefit? How can she continue to feel that she is part of the enterprise society when she is far worse off working three days a week as a shop assistant than she would be if she stayed at home? When the Prime Minister eventually administers the Admiral Byng treatment to the Secretary of State for Social Services, will she consider administering similar treatment to the Secretary of State for Employment, as he has been the architect of the mess in which the Government find themselves?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is not possible for me to deal with individual cases. Whenever I have tried to do so, I have found that when we look into them there are substantial factors which have not been fully put into the question. I remind the hon. Gentleman that if we went back to the amount spent on housing benefit in 1979 it would mean cutting the total spent by 52 per cent.

Did my right hon. Friend read the remarkable speech which our right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made recently, in which he praised the part which the so-called working classes now play in supporting the Government? We all agree with that. However, for the avoidance of doubt, will she confirm that there is still room in the Government and in the Conservative party for the nobility, the gentry and the middle classes?—[Interruption.]

Order. The whole House wants to hear this reply.

My hon. Friend is just about the only person who could ask that question in this House, and I wish to goodness that we had more like him.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister consider the case of Mrs. Niner, a lollipop lady in my constituency, who lives with her husband, young daughter and two teenage sons in a two-bedroomed maisonette? Over and above the existing rates level, they will be faced with an extra poll tax bill of £1,138 per year. Can that be stopped, or will the Government's poll tax juggernaut run down my lollipop lady?

If they are faced with a poll tax —a community charge—of that dimension, it must be because they have a very extravagant local authority. That is partly the trouble. Many Left-wing Labour authorities have put up the rent and rates, saying that the taxpayer can afford to pay for them, but the fact is—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell his lollipop lady and many others—that under this Government the amount spent on social security, in particular on health and pensions, has vastly increased beyond anything that could have been contemplated eight years ago.

At a time when many people are working hard to repair and improve Anglo-Irish relations, was it not unhelpful, to say the least, for the Irish Prime Minister to make such a savage attack on the British Government's policies last weekend? In particular, was it not irresponsible of him to advocate a unitary state in Ireland, when his own country's Government so recently put their names to a document forswearing that until such time as the majority of people of Northern Ireland want that to happen?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The highest priority must be the defeat of terrorism, which could be a threat south of the border, as it is in the north. The defeat of terrorism requires unstinting effort and effective co-operation across the border. We shall continue to press for that and to seek reassurance from the Irish Government that the speech to which my hon. Friend referred does not mean that they are backing away from their responsibilities under the agreement.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

I wanted to ask the Prime Minister why the Government Whip objected to the Second Reading of my Grandparents (Adoption of Children) Bill last Friday. However, as she was not prepared to reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, does that mean that the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Members must continually badger the Government so that they realise that changes are needed in the proposals for social security? As the Prime Minister refused to answer the Leader of the Opposition, will she answer my straightforward question? Is the Prime Minister going to make any changes to housing benefit in the new proposals for social security?

I will answer the hon. Gentleman as I answered the Leader of the Opposition. This year about £46 billion is being spent on social security—a sum vastly in excess of anything contemplated seven or eight years ago. There are more pensioners, the eligibility for people who are disabled has been increased and we are concentrating more money on families, especially on low income families. It was time that we had a fundamental reform, and it was the right reform.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

During my right hon. Friend's most welcome visit last Friday to the thriving city of Nottingham, where many of my constituents work, did she notice two key characteristics: first, that last May the administration was taken over by a Conservative council for the first time; and, secondly, that the initiative to restore and rejuvenate those parts of Nottingham which require it are being led by a private sector initiative?

I had a good visit to Nottingham. I saw those now responsible for the sound administration and careful finances of the city, which was flourishing. I saw excellent industries, some of which did not exist some years ago and which had taken over where there had been a dying industry and were providing new jobs, which is good. I saw excellent industries, an excellent administra-tion and excellent arts and sports facilities.