To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation last reviewed the relationship within its overall strategy between conventional and nuclear weapons; and what role Her Majesty's Government played in that process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation last reviewed the relationship within its overall strategy between conventional and nuclear weapons; and what role Her Majesty's Government played in that process.

NATO and its member nations keep all aspects of Alliance strategy under constant review, in order to ensure that it remains effective. As Defence Ministers reaffirmed at the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee last month, the strategy of flexible response and forward defence, based on an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces, remains vital to our security.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the mix to which he referred is increasingly veering towards the nuclear and that that imposes particular constraints on conventional weapons and on expenditure on conventional weapons? Does he further accept that, because of those constraints, the British Army has been unable to place orders for the new generation of tanks and that that is typical of the problems facing the armed forces? When will that order be placed, and how much of it will come to the Vickers factory in Leeds?

I am afraid that I cannot agree with either of the hon. Gentleman's points. On the first point, of a much larger defence budget, no less than 95 per cent. is spent on conventional, not nuclear, armaments. That disposes effectively of the hon. Gentleman's first point.

Are not the Government speaking—as the Indians in the old Westerns used to say—with forked voice?—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tongue."] Forked voice or forked tongue, it is the same thing. On the one hand the Government say that they welcome the initiatives of the Soviet Union, and on the other they introduce proposals that reinforce the concept of nuclear weapons. Is it not time that they accepted the initiative of the Soviet Union and got down to believing the words of Mr. Gorbachev rather than suggesting that he speaks with a forked tongue? Is it not time that they did something positive for once about getting rid of nuclear weapons, rather than using conventional weapons to reintroduce them, which is what they are doing at the moment?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I suggest that he must be thinking with a forked mind. It was not in any sense Mr. Gorbachev's initiative that led to the INF treaty. It was an initiative taken by the Western Alliance in 1981 which, after a few years of prevarication, was eventually agreed to by the Soviet Union. The thing that really brought the Russians to the negotiating table was the knowledge that we were prepared to defend ourselves.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to obey Opposition Members' theories there would be an extraction of our independent nuclear deterrent, and if we were to extract our nuclear input from the negotiations independently it would be grossly destablising and would upset the whole process of negotiation?

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. If we had obeyed the instructions of Opposition Members—which, thank goodness, we did not—we should have cruise missiles for ever facing each other in Europe, which we now do not. If we agreed to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in future, there is no doubt that further reductions and arms control would be very unlikely.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we had no nuclear deterrent, we would need to spend three times as much on conventional weapons to maintain any parity with the Soviet Union?

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's sentiment, but I must beg to differ. Even if we were to spend three times as much, we would not get anything like the same effect that we get out of our present nuclear deterrent. It is worth reminding ourselves that the entire NATO Alliance—all countries of all political persuasions—is united in its determination that the doctrine of flexible response is the best security for all of us.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that when he tries to detract from Mr. Gorbachev having made any contribution to such an agreement as we have recently had he makes himself look utterly ridiculous? When he insists on the phrase "flexible response", as he always does, will he take into account the fact that, in certain circumstances, it means that the NATO Alliance, or Britain, would be prepared to use nuclear weapons first? It may be that even he is not insane enough to contemplate that.

If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, I never said that Mr. Gorbachev made no contribution to the INF treaty. He has. I have made it clear that he has made a contribution to it, but it was not his initiative that brought us to the discussion. It was a Western initiative. The right hon. Gentleman really must accept that.

What is my right hon. Friend's view of the impact on strategic planning of the yo-yo nuclear and conventional defence policies of the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition?

It is too difficult for me to speculate on the Leader of the Opposition's shifting views on nuclear defence.

Order. I remind the House that supplementary questions must relate to the question on the Order Paper.

Is the Secretary of State still confident that he can meet his forward defence responsibilities within NATO, given reports about the deplorable rundown in the surface fleet? Is he prepared to announce orders for the type 23 frigates that the country and our shipyards desperately require?

I most warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position and look forward to debating defence matters with him. I am sure that he will be able to put forward his party's nuclear defence policy every bit as well as the Leader of the Opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of collaboration between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany on advanced defence equipment projects.

The Federal Republic of Germany has been one of our most frequent and successful partners in co-operative equipment procurement programmes, and is likely to remain so.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that as we are happily taking the lead on key aspects in the development of the European fighter aircraft—for example, the airframe and engine—in the true spirit of European co-operation with the Germans, it would be right and fair for other aspects of the development programme to be led by other partners, including Germany? In particular, I refer to radar.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the MOU for the European fighter aircraft provides for a work share based on the declared off-take of participating countries. Therefore, the work share of a country or company for any particular piece of equipment will depend upon the assessment of competitive bids that are sought for each type of equipment.

Does the Minister agree that there is enormous worry in Germany about a strategy that might involve a nuclear war being fought on its soil and that that is likely to undermine co-operation? Is it true that, in evidence to the Defence Select Committee, his Department recently said that Britain's and NATO's strategy is to look forward to a limited nuclear war in Europe?

I hope the hon. Lady recognises that NATO's strategy is to prevent war.

One other successful collaborative venture with Germany has been the Tornado. When will my hon. Friend make an announcement about the mid-life update of that aeroplane?

I agree that that has been a remarkably successful collaborative venture. However, I cannot answer my hon. Friend's particular question at this stage.

Does the Minister accept that it is about time that the West Germans committed themselves to the ECR 90 radar rather than pursuing the route of the American Phantom derivation? Does he further accept that the ECR 90 radar is important to British industry, not only because it is of European design and fulfils all the operational requirements of the European fighter aircraft, but, more than that, because it safeguards our technology and prevents us from becoming subservient to the Americans in this important sector? It will also save many thousands of jobs in Scotland.

I agree that the radar is a vital part of the equipment of the EFA. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that competitive bids from two consortia, both of which include British companies, are being analysed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when service men will be able to purchase additional voluntary contributions for pension purposes.

Facilities for service men to make additional voluntary contributions to enhance pension benefits in particular categories have been available from earlier this year. Action is in hand to extend the range and scope of those facilities as far and as quickly as is practicable.

Does my hon. Friend accept that his answer will be widely welcomed in the armed forces, not only because it will maintain the quality of the pension, as is the case in civilian life, but because it will be especially good for morale? It will also help in the matter of retention.

I agree that the armed forces pension scheme is excellent. It costs the taxpayer £1 billion a year and enables a service man after, for example, 22 years' service to retire with an immediate and indexed pension. That must contribute to the excellent morale of our armed forces.

Has my hon. Friend learnt from the experience of other Government Departments that in the coming year there is scope for improving the arrangements for members of the armed forces to take up additional voluntary contributions? Does he agree that the need for flexibility in pension provision—however good the armed services pension scheme—is one of the great advances, especially for the armed forces, of the Social Security Act 1986?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It was not just the 1986 Act but the 1987 Act that made provision for additional voluntary contributions, both free-standing and in-house, for service men and, indeed, for civilians. I confirm that we are making rapid progress on completing the introduction of facilities for additional voluntary contributions for pensions for service men.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total value of military equipment held in his Department's stores; and what resources his Department devotes to safeguarding these stores against fire.

The most recent estimate of the value of stocks held in major stores depots is approximately £10 billion. Fire prevention measures include dispersal and segregation of stocks; provision of fire control equipment, such as fire mains and hydrants; automatic fire detection and suppression systems; and our own fire brigades, where appropriate.

Is the Minister aware that after the fire at Donnington a number of recommendations were not implemented before there was a second fire? Will he assure us that he will instruct his Department fully to implement safety proposals in all Ministry of Defence stores so that people can sleep safely and comfortably at night?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the personnel at our military units, and, indeed, any civilians nearby, can sleep safely at night. After the 1983 fire all the recommendations made by the military board of inquiry were acted upon. After the fire at Donnington a few months ago, a military board of inquiry was set up to examine just how many and to what degree the recommendations made in 1983 were properly implemented. I look forward, as do all my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, to receiving the report of that board of inquiry.

What is the annual wastage from Ministry of Defence establishments as a result of fire or other damage?

Over the past 10 years I estimate that the wastage figure has been about £50 million per annum, but, of course, that must be set in the context of stores valued at about £10 billion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

I am pleased to be able to reaffirm that the Trident programme remains on schedule and to budget.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that all work on Trident submarine building at Barrow has been halted for the past three weeks as a direct result of the management's attempt to compel the entire work force to take its summer holiday during the same two weeks in August? In view of the past successes at Barrow, is it not ridiculous that that Victorian attitude to industrial relations should be allowed to imperil something as vital as Trident? As there is no sign of a settlement in the future, what steps will the Secretary of State take to safeguard the future of the Trident programme?

I would not wish to intervene in what is essentially an industrial dispute between employers and employees, but I hope that that dispute will be resolved as soon as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the subcontract for the Trident shiplift at Faslane will shortly be awarded either to Harland and Wolff or to Cleveland Bridge in my constituency? Will he confirm that, this time, the competition between Northern Ireland and the north-east will be fair?

Yes. I confirm that every possible effort will be made to ensure that the competition is absolutely fair. The work on the shiplift facilities and so on at Faslane is presently proceeding on schedule.

With reference to the Clyde end of the Trident programme, will the Secretary of State now confirm that the contract for the floating jetty for the Royal Naval armaments division at Coulport is to be awarded to McAlpine and that it will be constructed of concrete at Ardyne Point?

I cannot confirm any decisions of that sort. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a question about it, I shall try to answer it.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as an investment for peace, Trident is still tremendously effective? At its peak it will be absorbing only 11 per cent. of the defence equipment budget, which is less than the Tornado aircraft will absorb at its peak.

Yes, it is certainly true that the Trident programme is not as expensive as the Tornado programme, but it is extremely valuable. There is no way in which, by equivalent expenditure, an equivalent benefit could be given to the defence of the West and Britain.

Will the Secretary of State give the House the assurance that the Select Committee was unable to receive from his officials, that the delays in the Trident programme, in particular the delays at Aldermaston and Burghfield, are now being avoided and that the programme is truly up to schedule and not delayed, as has been suggested?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be right for me to give a proper and measured response to the Select Committee report. I hope to do so as soon as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why it is the Government's policy not to disclose who is invited to the British Army equipment exhibition.

It has been the policy of this and previous Administrations not to release details of invitations to the British Army equipment exhibition. Invitations are issued on a confidential basis, and it would be a breach of trust to release names.

That is a pretty weak and pathetic excuse. Given that we are supposed to be protecting a free and open society, would it not be a good idea if, in common with most other Western democracies, we were a little better at freedom of information?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the rights of those who are asked to the exhibition to the protection of their own confidential information. We should respect their entitlement to that.

When my hon. Friend looks at the exhibitors at the British Army equipment exhibition, will he bear in mind Vickers' need to be able to forward-plan its programme and make an announcement as soon as possible about the new tank replacement, which is needed for the 1990s?

The equipment on display covers a wide range and is a valuable display for all who attend. It is probably more important for those who attend from overseas than for members of the British Army, who can see the equipment in other ways.

Given the Minister's negative attitude to freedom of information in the context of these invitations, do the Government propose to adopt a more open attitude when it comes to supporting the United Nations register of arms transfers?

I am not sure that that arises directly out of this question. If there were an effectively policed and verified international register, we would support it.

As information on who is invited to this military exhibition is to remain confidential, will my hon. Friend slip an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition, so that he can pick up some——

Order. Please stick to the question on the Order Paper.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and useful suggestion. I assure——

Order. I have already said that we must stick to the question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is fine to rule a question out of order, but it seems senseless to rule it out of order if you then allow it to be answered.

Order. I thought that the Minister was going to answer the bit that was relevant.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to acquire for British forces any warheads previously removed from cruise missiles under the terms of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty; and if he will make a statement.

The warheads for cruise missiles being withdrawn under the terms of the INF treaty are the property of the United States Government, and their disposal is therefore entirely a matter for them.

Could not some of the nuclear-capable warheads of the multi-launch rocket system that Britain is now acquiring, or some of the American base nuclear weapons in this country, be recycled as cruise missiles, which were supposedly negotiated away under the INF agreement? The Department of Energy in the United States told Congress that that was likely to happen. Therefore, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that it will not happen to any weapons, British or American, based in this country?

I think that the hon. Lady may be referring to nuclear material contained in warheads. As regards warheads from cruise missiles, I should point out that we are getting rid of ground-launched cruise missiles from this country under the INF treaty. We have no plans to acquire submarine or air-launched cruise missiles for our forces, so the hon. Lady's worries do not arise.

Will my hon. Friend continue to do his level best to continue to reduce the cost of defence procurement?

Certainly, in such modest ways as I can contribute to that worthy objective. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is more directly concerned with these matters, will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take in the light of the conclusions of the Defence Committee in its recent report on the progress of the trident programme, with particular reference to the allegedly inaccurate evidence given to the Committee by his Department.

A formal Government response to the Committee's comprehensive report will be made in due course and it would be inappropriate for me to anticipate that response. I was, however, pleased to note that the Committee felt that the Trident programme was generally well run.

Is the Minister aware that the Government are still misleading the House and the country about the cost of Trident? The Ministry of Defence is being economic with the truth rather than economic with taxpayers' money, and the Select Committee on Defence has condemned the Ministry for misleading the Committee and not telling the truth to the House.

That is a serious charge. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate our response to a Select Committee report. He is completely wrong to say that we have misled the House on the cost of Trident which is decreasing in terms of foreign exchange costs and actual costs. I should have thought that he would be pleased to know that.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whatever figure we take for the cost of Trident, it represents a comparatively modest proportion of our future defence spending and, as such, is excellent value for money? Will he further confirm that at least one of the two main parties remains firmly committed to that programme, although both were committed to it nine years ago?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. By any standards, the cost of Trident is extremely good value for money. I repeat that 95 per cent. of our much larger defence budget is spent on non-nuclear defence. That answers the other part of my hon. Friend's question.

Will the Secretary of State reflect on the balance between a strategic defence commitment to Trident and the need to maintain, as the Select Committee on Defence said today, a viable surface fleet with more frigates and destroyers in operation than the number that he has available now? Will he give us a straight answer about the number of frigates and destroyers that are in operation today? When will he update his commitment to place orders for at least three frigates by the end of June?

The size of the Royal Navy is at a very high level. There are about 143 commissioned ships, and the Government intend to keep about 50 destroyers or frigates as part of a large and effective fleet. At present, 47 ships are available for service—and very valuable service they are doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that whereas 10 years ago frigates and destroyers spent 27 per cent. of their lives in refit, today they spend only 12 per cent. of their lives in refit, which is a great improvement.

May I remind the Secretary of State that the calculation of the cost of Trident has been based on an exchange rate of £1·30 to the pound? In view of the recent, but long-sustained, increase in the exchange rate, is it not time to take a new exchange rate and thus reduce the figures presented to the House?

My hon. Friend is correct to say that the movement in the exchange rate has an effect on these matters. It has been a convention that towards the beginning of each year we announce the recosting of the Trident programme, and we base that figure on the exchange rate of the previous June. It is best to keep the figures comparable by using the same system on each occasion. As my hon. Friend knows, in each of the past two years there have been substantial reductions in the exchange rate costs and the actual costs of the Trident programme.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is irresponsible to keep on building nuclear-powered submarines while we still have no safe way of disposing of the propulsion units when they are decommissioned? Will he comment on the reports in the Scottish press on Sunday that he has decided to consider disposal of those units at sea off the coast of Scotland? Has he decided that, and at so, when will a formal announcement be made about it?

That report in the papers on Sunday had no basis in fact. No such decision has been taken. It is inescapable, because so many nations have nuclear-powered submarines, that their disposal must be considered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been considering the problem for some time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cadet units of the three services exist in inner city areas of the United Kingdom; and what steps are being taken to examine further expansion.

There are 65 detachments of the Army Cadet Force, Air Training Corps and Sea Cadets located in or near inner-city areas. We are examining the feasibility of introducing a pilot expansion programme in the west midlands, initially covering the Army Cadet Force and, we hope, the Sea Cadets.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is much better that young people honour our flag as the sea cadets do, rather than dishonouring it as hooligans overseas? In considering further support for the cadet movement, will he pay particular attention to the training ship Cirius in the Bartley Green area of my constituency, which has only just commenced operations and requires all the encouragement that it can possibly get for its excellent work?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The cadets is not a military organisation but is part of the national youth movement. It contributes to good citizenship, a sense of good discipline and is to be congratulated. I understand that the unit in my hon. Friend's constituency is a trial one and I shall follow its progress, as I am sure he will, very carefully.

When the Ministry of Defence is dealing with cadet units, how does it explain that one of the philosophies of the British armed forces is the potential mass extermination of men, women and children on a scale never yet contemplated on our planet, and that this will be done whatever the views of those men, women and children, through the use of nuclear weapons? Is that not one of the most horrific and immoral attitudes, similar to the extermination of the Jews by Hitler in the 1939 war? How does the Minister square that with the philosophy——

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going miles wide of the question. [Interruption.]

rose——

Order. We must stick to the question.

I am certain that my hon. Friend will be assured of the support of most hon. Members in his laudable efforts to increase the number of units in inner city areas, but is there any way in which he can encourage local authorities and education authorities to stop blocking the expansion of units and to encourage them to be set up in association with schools?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is regrettable that some schools and local education authorities do not permit those seeking to establish cadet organisations in schools——

Where?

If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will table a question, I shall answer it. The purpose of the cadet organisations is to serve Queen and country and to defend this country.

Would it not be better if the Minister encouraged our young people to join the woodcraft folk [Interruption.]——

Order. We are making slow progress.

It is a fairly reasonable question. If they joined the woodcraft folk they could learn about peaceful co-existence and go to the countryside and have a good time rather than learning about killing people.

The purpose of the cadet organisations and the junior elements of the regular armed forces is to teach, in part, the elements of self-discipline, self-respect and service to the community.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking further action to combat bullying in the Army.

I have received no such representations since I announced the measures to combat bullying to the House on 26 January. I last made a statement on progress in implementing these measures on 7 June.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the steps that he has taken to date. Will he say what are the costs involved and how many allegations of bullying have been made?

The full cost of implementing the measures that I announced is approximately £2 million per annum. The Ministry of Defence has not shrunk from allocating the necessary resources for dealing with the problem. Over the past 18 months there have been about 130 allegations of bullying, of which 104 were investigated and 60-odd were found to be completely without foundation.

Is the Minister aware that two of the most obnoxious forms of bullying in the Army are racial harassment and racial abuse? In view of the recent exposure of the practice in the Army, what does he intend to do about it?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. Racial harassment and racial discrimination are obnoxious. The Government's position has been made crystal clear on that subject. No racial harassment or discrimination is permitted or tolerated in the British armed forces.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a clear distinction between bullying and teasing, and will he assure the House that his Department will always carefully evaluate allegations of bullying in that light?

Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he would not wish to suggest that bullying is something that the British Army should tolerate. It is absolutely obnoxious and unnecessary. One does not need to bully people in order to draw the best out of them and instil in them a sense of self-discipline.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the efficiency study into the activities relating to dog training at RAF Newton and the RAVC centre, Melton Mowbray; and when the report will be available.

The consultants report should be received by the Ministry by August. A decision on the future of training will be made as soon as possible thereafter.

Now that the 11 th investigation in 22 years into the training of dogs is coming to an end, will my hon. Friend please stop wasting money on all these interminable investigations and simply let the RAVC get on with its valuable job?

That is a trifle uncharitable. We are not wasting taxpayers' money by making sure that there is a thorough and proper study of the options available. I hope that my hon. Friend will avail himself of the Ministry of Defence's invitation to come in and express his views in detail on the subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking the establishment of a compensation fund to assist service men who claim that their health was adversely affected by their participation in nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s.

A number of proposals have been made by right hon. and hon. Members and by others regarding compensation for participants in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapon test programme. The Government remain confident, however, that the radiological safety precautions adopted during the test programme were effective and that the chance of anyone suffering harm to health as a consequence of participation in the tests was extremely small. We believe that the recently published NRPB report vindicates this view.

Is it not the case that, apart from deaths from leukemia and multiple myeloma, which are now established, there are many other instances of death from various diseases among those test veterans? Is it not also the case that a high proportion of them are sterile and that those who are not sterile have had partners who have given birth to deformed children to a remarkable extent, well above the average that one would expect? Are the Government simply mean, callous and heartless, or is the reason why they will not pay up that they are terrified that to do so would have the most devastating effect on the current debate on nuclear weapons and civil nuclear power?

I have a great deal of sympathy with those who are suffering ill health and who firmly and sincerely believe that they are suffering because of their participation in the tests. However, if the hon. Gentleman studies the NRPB report he will find that it in no way supports the allegations that he has just made.

Is it not particularly disgraceful that a Government who are so obsessed with the role of nuclear weapons in their defence policy can be so dismissive of those who have suffered the most appalling injuries in the promotion of that weapon?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that underlying the phrasing of his question is the assumption that there is a direct connection between the ill health from which those people are suffering and their participation in the tests. That view is not supported by the NRPB report, and I can assure him that if there were definite evidence linking the ill health of participants to their participation in the tests we would of course come forward with offers of compensation.

Can the Minister undertake to review the figures each year to see whether there is any clear statistical correlation as the situation develops?

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Further work will be done by the NRPB to follow up the excellent work which it has already done and which has led, I am glad to say, to what has been recognised as a genuinely independent and authoritative report.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking the withdrawal of invitations to attend the British Army equipment exhibition from 26 June to 1 July issued to any country with a record of human rights abuses.

A number of representations have been received.

Is it not a fact that over 10,000 letters and a very large petition have already been sent complaining bitterly about the fact that one third of the countries that were at the 1986 exhibition were on Amnesty International's torture list, and that the weapons that they can buy can be used for internal repression and torture? Is it not about time that this vile trade was cleared up and the Government had some mechanism to prevent those people from attending?

May I point out to the hon. Lady that it is individuals rather than companies that are asked. I assume from the wording of her question that the hon. Lady is entirely against trade in armaments. May I remind her that the successful sale of arms overseas by the British defence industry supports 100,000 jobs?

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Can my right hon. Friend this afternoon express on behalf of the Government the disgust felt throughout the country at the attempt by terrorists not only to bomb the driver of a school bus in Northern Ireland but to kill the schoolchildren on that bus? Is it not a tragic irony that the children were then treated at the same hospital in Enniskillen as the people who were killed and injured in the Enniskillen bombing last year? Will my right hon. Friend send full reports of this bombing to Congressman Joe Kennedy in the United States?

This was a cowardly and disgusting act against an off-duty part-time member of the UDR in a situation in which many children and young people might have been killed. It indicates that there are no depths to which terrorists are not prepared to sink: first a remembrance service, then a charity fun-run, and now a school bus. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing horror, coupled with thankfulness that no one was killed and more people were not injured.

May I first join the right hon. Gentleman in strongly condemning this vile attack; indeed, no words could give full force to what decent, normal, ordinary people feel.

First, I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition safely in his place after his morning's activities.

If everything is going so well, why are interest rates going up?

As the Chancellor said:

"Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy. Within a continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions, I will continue to set interest rates at the level necessary to ensure downward pressure on inflation."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 997.]

I recall the Chancellor and the Prime Minister saying that short-term interest rates were the essential lever of monetary policy. There have been seven changes in short-term interest rates in 12 weeks. Has the lever come off in the Chancellor's hand?

No. As the Leader of the Opposition will surely recognise, interest rates are an essential weapon in controlling monetary conditions. However, what is more to the point is that a 1 per cent. increase in wage costs is four times as damaging to industry as a 1 per cent. increase in interest costs.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend attempt to organise visits to the annual conferences of the National Union of Mineworkers and the Scotch Whisky Association, because if he could he would find that the National Union of Mineworkers seems to support industrial unrest, and even the occasional killing of innocent people, while the Scotch Whisky Association employs 16,000 people, has exports worth £1 billion and contributes £1 billion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget? Does not that clear comparison show which is the more important to the nation?

I am sorry to give my hon. Friend a disappointing reply. My duties in this House will not allow me to attend either event. On the question of Scotch whisky, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the successful passage of his private Member's Bill. As for the NUM, I hope that whoever goes to its conference will find an opportunity to condemn the use of violence in industrial action.

Since the high value of the pound, aided by runaway easy credit, sucks in imports and worsens our balance of payments crisis, why, even today, does the Prime Minister continue to resist seeking exchange rate stability through joining the European monetary system? Will the Leader of the House explain the contrast between the Prime Minister's resistance to that and her tactless enthusiasm in the Canadian House of Commons last week for Canada to join an economic unit with its larger, single neighbour?

The control of inflation is paramount and the Government will not bail out excessive increases in domestic costs by allowing exchange rate depreciation. Restraint of industry's costs is in its own hands. The Prime Minister is discussing those issues in Hanover today. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman awaits her statement on Thursday.

In his discussions with the Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend take note of the remarkable increase in charitable giving in this country in recent years, and especially the help that that provides in specific areas? Will he also convey to the Prime Minister the wide support for payroll-giving relief in the recent Budet? How does the Methodist Church think that we can behave otherwise than by that way of helping particular people? Will he condemn the Methodists' negative approach?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a remarkable record for a whole series of ways in which he has assisted charities in this country, and that is set to continue.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to view last night's "World In Action" programme on her return, and especially to vet the activities of millionaire gangster Nicholas van Hoogstraten, who describes himself as "probably ruthless" and "probably violent" and who has been charged on several occasions with violence against tenants? In passing the Housing Bill last night, have not the Government given the green light to such ruthless gangsters to harass tenants further under the motto "Cry, 'Havoc' and let slip the ghosts of Rachman"?

I am sure that no one in the House would support criminal activities by any landlord in any form. Bad landlord behaviour is the product of the Rent Acts, which held down rents and denied landlords a reasonable rate of return. The Housing Bill remedies that.

Has my right hon. Friend noted today the case of Dean Scott, who died so tragically as a result of parental neglect, although warnings were both given and received by the police and the local authorities? Did he note that the three local authorities concerned have said that no blame attaches to them and that they followed all existing procedures? Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable influence to ensure that existing procedures are altered?

I cannot be expected to comment on the particular court case and the judgment that was reached, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will look carefully at all the lessons that are to be learnt from that distressing case and will see to it that any necessary changes are made and, certainly, that the proper procedures are brought to the attention of all those concerned.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I have been asked to reply.

When the Prime Minister returns from her latest overseas mission, will the Leader of the House ask the right hon. Lady, or the Mother of Parliament as she was mistakenly referred to in Ottawa last week—I am told that Canadian Opposition Members called her something different—urgently to knock together the heads of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales for their further shilly-shallying over the second Severn crossing, as its further delay and the contradictions in Government policy over the matter are standing on the jugular vein of the Welsh economy?

As one who goes over the bridge quite frequently, I recognise that the increasing prosperity that the Government are bringing to south Wales is increasing the amount of traffic over the bridge. Both my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Transport have those matters in hand and will make an announcement in due course.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend, during the course of his busy day, find time to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service, which takes place this weekend? Will he convey to all the people who work in it the hope that the scope and quality of the services offered will, over the next 40 years, increase by as much as they have over the past 40 years, the majority under Conservative Governments?

My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter. I am aware of the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service. It caused me to reflect that, for 26 years of that time, there has been a Conservative Government. We have consistently increased spending on the National Health Service, which now treats more patients with more new treatments than ever before. That contrasts with the record of the Labour party, which cut expenditure and nurses' pay and increased waiting lists.

If, as the Leader of the House has said, the root of the Chancellor's problem is that foreigners are so eager to thrust their money upon us, why has he increased interest rates?

I have already answered the question about interest rates and indicated that the movement of interest rates reflects a need to keep inflation under control, which is the paramount need of the economy at any time. The problem of people wishing to invest in this country would not be there if the hon. Gentleman's party were in government.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her oficial engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend explain the constitutional significance of the glorious revolution? Did it herald the dawn of a new era and a new realism?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his question and for having drafted the reply.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Leader of the House not appalled at the farce that passes for Prime Minister's Question Time? Two 15-minute periods a week are spent by the Prime Minister in what can only be described as an abuse of her office. Is it not time that the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for the balance of trade deficit, the crisis in the Health Service, 4 million unemployed, despair, homelessness and poverty, was ordered to come to the House to give an account of her bankrupt stewardship to the nation?

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I can think of better things to do with 15 minutes of my time every now and again. [Interruption.] To give the hon. Gentleman a serious answer, Prime Minister's Question Time is determined by the House, not by the Prime Minister. The Committee on Procedure has many times considered the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time is conducted. I know that my right hon. Friend would be willing to change the format if that is what the House wanted. I suspect that the present format is generally acceptable to most right hon. and hon. Members. If there is any criticism of it, it is of the quality of the questions that come from Opposition Members.