To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers have had concerning a mandate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation negotiators at the forthcoming conventional stability talks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers have had concerning a mandate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation negotiators at the forthcoming conventional stability talks.

NATO Heads of State and Government set out their approach to conventional arms control at their summit on 2 March this year. We have regular discussions with our NATO partners concerning the translation of this overall approach into NATO proposals for tabling at the conventional stability talks which we hope will begin later this year.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on holding on to his job yesterday when all around were losing theirs. Is he aware that that is the second narrow escape that he has had in the past 12 months?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are pursuing disarmament most vigorously and, unlike all their predecessors, are achieving successful results in doing so. We are taking an active role in working out a mandate for the conventional disarmament talks. It is on our text that the discussion is now taking place. I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for demilitarised zones. They are wholly unenforceable and, therefore, not something that we should approach.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the European Community's Foreign Ministers have welcomed Mr. Gorbachev's suggestion of a pan-European summit to reduce conventional forces in Europe? Is it only the Governments refusal to include in the talks dual-capable weapons that is standing in the way of NATO's mandate and of an agreement?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The preparations for the talks are going well. Discussions are proceeding principally on the text of the Western proposals. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the inclusion of dual-capable systems will depend on whether their conventional role is applicable to the talks. That is not an obstacle to proceeding.

As the European pillar of the NATO Alliance, does my right hon. Friend envisage any part being played by the Western European Union?

Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, we are now in the chair of the Western European Union and, in the course of our year's chairmanship, we shall encourage the WEU to make a contribution towards strengthening the European pillar of the Alliance and forwarding the disarmament talks.

Is there any hard evidence available to my right hon. Friend and to his NATO Defence Minister colleagues that, as a consequence of the internal changes that are in train in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Government are now more amenable than they have been over the years to appropriate reductions in conventional weapons on each side?

The new atmosphere in Moscow is more conducive that the previous atmosphere to achieving reductions in weapons, including conventional weapons. However, I am afraid that at this stage there is no sign of any reduction, or even easing, in the growth of military expenditure in the Soviet Union. We hope to see that, but there is no evidence of it yet.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a sad day when the French and German Foreign Ministers are prepared to accept the need for conventional cuts of the kind that have been suggested, but the British Government are not willing to enter into the spirit of the new hopes that many have for relations with the Soviet Union? Therefore, will the Secretary of State explain to the Foreign Secretary that there is scope for European initiatives as well as NATO initiatives on conventional talks and conventional cuts?

There is scope for ideas and initiatives from anyone involved in these processes, but it would be extremely disruptive of the opportunity to make progress in the talks if we were to start separate talks on other bases at the same time as we prepare for these major and important talks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has on the effect on prices charged of his Department's policy of requiring suppliers to stick a two-tier price label on packages of spare parts; and if he will make a statement.

Last year the Department introduced the requirement for spares to be price-labelled. This initiative is part of the Ministry's drive to ensure value for money in defence procurement. Price labelling will provide a further check against possible overcharging for spares by contractors and improve cost awareness among our personnel. It is much too early to quantify the benefits that will be obtained.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in practice in some cases the labelling requirement is resulting in higher prices being quoted to the Ministry of Defence? Is he aware that a company of my acquaintance made two quotes, one without the labelling requirement and one with the labelling requirement at a 5 per cent. premium, and the MOD contracts office accepted the higher price? Is there not a case for introducing greater flexibility into the system?

I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that adding a small additional piece of information to a label that is already required is likely to result in a negligible increase in cost in the vast majority of cases. If particular difficulties are associated with one product, we are prepared to discuss that with the supplier, but, overall, we see major benefits which would greatly exceed the small extra cost of putting that information on the label.

That is not the only anomaly in the Ministry of Defence's procurement policy. Is the Minister aware that his Department told the Public Accounts Committee that it

"sought to avoid getting into a situation where one"——

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote. Paraphrase, please.

Is the Minister aware that his Department told the Public Accounts Committee that it sought to avoid a situation where one contractor was supplying all the frigate procurement package in order to make long-term savings and then went on to place the entirety of the frigate procurement package with one yard in direct contradiction to what was said to the Public Accounts Committee? How does the Minister account for that?

We have capable frigates on order, and I scarcely think that they fall into the category of spares.

Price labelling will help to give value for money on the £2 billion-plus spares order for military equipment and prevent scandals such as occurred in the United States with the $1,200 ashtray and the $1,500 toilet seat, but does my hon. Friend agree that more could be saved by avoiding small uneconomic batch ordering and looking more closely at the quantities that are being ordered?

My hon. Friend has a good point. We are looking at the size and frequency of each order, but, as he is clearly aware, there is a large spend on spares—over £2 billion—and we must ensure that we avoid the sorts of instances that have been reported from the United States, where, to give another example, a list of stores contained what was called a multi-directional impact device priced at $400, which, on closer examination, turned out to be a hammer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the projected redundancies at Devonport and Rosyth, he will reconsider the balance between the core programme and unallocated work for the royal dockyards.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the projected redundancies at Devonport and Rosyth, he will reconsider the balance between the core programme and unallocated work for the royal dockyards.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer questions Nos. 4 and 11 together.

Does the Minister accept that since privatisation it has been proved that the Government gave incorrect information at that time? Has not half the work force been destroyed in job terms since privatisation, and is it not a fact that another 1,500 jobs are in jeopardy at the Portsmouth repair yard? Will the Government reconsider the question of allocation and look at the situation again in order to safeguard the remaining jobs?

I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we gave inaccurate information. We gave the information on job losses that was available to us at the time. The level of employment in the dockyard is a matter for DML. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that we re-examine the balance between the core and unallocated programmes, because about two dozen firms throughout the country benefit from the jobs provided by the unallocated programme. It would be totally inappropriate and destructive of our urge to seek greater competition to deprive them of the opportunity of tendering for that part of the work that is in the unallocated programme.

Order. The Minister mentioned question No. 11, but I believe that he meant question No. 10.

Have not the Government's assurances to the Devonport workers before privatisation proved to be more useless than a bent penny? They were promised 60 per cent. of the core naval refit and repair programme, but that work has since been slashed. Will the Government give an assurance that the cuts made to the naval refit programme will be reviewed and that some jobs will be saved?

I apologise to the House, Mr. Speaker. We have had rather a large number of changes in questions. I should have referred to question No. 10.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still genuine anxiety locally about dockyard capability to respond in an emergency? If he is not prepared to increase the core programme, will he consider lifting the artificial restraint placed on the dockyards in respect of the allocated work?

I appreciate that there is concern in my hon. Friend's constituency about the dockyard's work load. As I have said previously, we keep under review the ship repair industry's total capacity, which covers not only the royal dockyards but the private sector as well. One of the factors taken into account is the opportunity in an emergency to transfer workers from refitting to repair work, because that could provide a considerable surge capacity. In those circumstances, we are confident that there is sufficient capacity in the dockyards to meet any crisis.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the purpose of offering all that repair work for tender is to obtain the best possible value for money for the Royal Navy rather than to provide local jobs in any particular area? Will he further confirm that the remaining core programme for Devonport is of a size and scope that almost any other naval repair facility in Europe would greatly envy?

We have a substantial capacity in both the former royal dockyards and in the private sector, which we believe is sufficient to meet the Royal Navy's needs and to ensure that its ships are maintained to the usual high standards.

Will the Minister review what he has been saying to the House, in the light of the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee and to the Select Committee on Defence about the rate of redundancies at Devonport and Rosyth? Will he confirm that the rate of redundancies at Devonport is far in excess of what was anticipated, and that the crux of the matter is that the core programme has been diminished and the dockyard at Devonport has not found itself capable of obtaining additional work? We are finding it difficult to keep up an adequate repair and maintenance service in the Navy. Will he come clean on the issue?

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are confident that we have an adequate ship repair capacity throughout the country in both the public and the private sectors. We have ample capacity to meet any surge of demand in a crisis, for the reasons that I have already advanced.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to decide on a replacement for the Challenger tank; and if he will make a statement.

The Challenger tank entered service in 1984, and deliveries to equip a total of seven regiments will not be completed until the end of the decade. We have no plans at present to replace Challenger.

We seem to go through this process of questioning every month. At the Vickers factory in Leeds there appears to be an unfortunate hiatus in orders for the new Challenger tanks and in their development. If an order is not placed before long, 700 jobs will be lost at the factory. Is the Secretary of State at all concerned about the potential loss of jobs in Leeds, or is he happy to allow the order to go to its German and American counterparts?

There is no question of that at present. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are considering whether we can replace the Chieftain tank and, if so, with what tank we should replace it. We hope that there will be competition and that the Leeds factory will feel able to put in a competitive bid for whatever orders are put out to tender. We hope to decide what to do before the end of the year.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that in making that important decision, which is overdue for the Army, he will take into consideration the potential of dedicated battlefield anti-tank helicopters against armour?

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. We are looking widely at the whole range of methods by which we can deal with the threat from enemy armour. One is the provision of effective tanks, but there are other alternatives, and I shall not rule out what he has said.

The Secretary of State's reply, that he has no successor programmes in hand, is very alarming. He must know that the last significant British development in tank technology was announced by a Labour Government, in respect of Chobham armour. There has been nothing of significance since, although, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Soviets have made significant developments over the past two years. As his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has just reminded him, that also applies to anti-tank weaponry.

That is perfectly true, and that is why we are examining the choices that we can make for the replacement of Chieftain and whether we can afford it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept, when taking advice on the matter, that the great weight of anti-tank weaponry possessed by all sides in a future battle is likely to make the tank about as effective as the horse was at the beginning of the last war? Will he be very careful before he proceeds to spend large sums on future tank technology?

I appreciate that there are various ways of dealing with the threat from tanks, but I do not think that I would subscribe to my hon. Friend's description of the tank as being quite so ineffective.

Is not the delay in placing orders for Challenger tanks and coming forward with a replacement programme for Chieftain a symptom of the problems that the Secretary of State faces in trying to get his defence budget to match? He is postponing important decisions. Now that such a distinguished Conservative Back Bencher as the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) has advocated a defence review, does he not think that it is time to take that advice?

I do not agree. As there was no question in the past of further tank orders, we are now considering what to do about replacing the Chieftain tank. We review the defence programme every year and balance resources with the programme. This year is no exception.

If and when my right hon. Friend considers a replacement for the Chieftain tank, will he bear in mind that the tracks and turret are made in a subsidiary of a Sheffield firm, William Cook plc? Will he take that fact into account in ensuring that the best possible equipment is obtained for the British Army?

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that fact. It would be for the makers to decide whether subcontractors should be employed to do the work. I have no doubt that in due course that my hon. Friend will be drawing that fact to the attention of the makers of the tank.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current proportion of the Royal Air Force's front-line aircraft which are not fully operational.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current proportion of Royal Air Force front-line aircraft which are not fully operational.

It has been the policy of successive Governments not to provide detailed information about the operational readiness of elements of the armed forces. However, I can assure the hon. Members that all Royal Air Force aircraft assigned to operational duties are fully manned and equipped and thus able to undertake their designated missions.

The Select Committee on Defence has reported that, despite the high cost of the maintenance and repair budget, one third to one half of the front-line defence aircraft are not available. Is that not dangerous and deplorable, and is it not yet another example of the Ministry of Defence procuring expensive equipment and then having to spend large sums of money on repairing and maintaining it?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Tornado aircraft. It is customary to have reserve aircraft, although I accept that the number of Tornado aircraft in reserve is very high. These aircraft are due to be modified at the end of the production run. I expect them to come on stream in the early 1990s.

No Opposition Member will be surprised to learn that the Conservatives have consistently refused to give such information, even though it is readily available to research workers at airports around the world. Will he say whether some of the operational failures are due to the lack of Foxhunter radar? Does he intend to return to the bizarre idea of filling the noses of some of the aeroplanes with concrete, with which, presumably, to ram our opponents?

The hon. Gentleman knows that in 1984–85 the non-availability of Foxhunter radar meant that the programme had to be rescheduled. That is why we are now operating according to the availability of both radar and pilots to fly the aircraft.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his front-line appointment and wish him a long and happy tenure in his office.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his kind remarks.

The ratio is of great significance, but what is the point of either the Royal Air Force or NATO maintaining a high ratio of operational aircraft if they are unable to communicate with each other in times of war, except through a third party, or if they are unable to be rearmed on the aerodromes of another allied nation or if, because of the current disastrous IFF position, a very large proportion are likely to be shot down by our own forces?

My hon. Friend confirms the remark that I made, which was that the operational efficiency of those aircraft must be supreme before we are prepared to let them fly.

May I offer my congratulations to the Minister and welcome him back to quiet pastures.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being done into low-frequency sonar for defence purposes.

Low-frequency passive sonar is already in use with the Royal Navy. The Ministry of Defence is currently conducting a research programme into low-frequency active sonar and its potential applications. That work is being undertaken within the Ministry of Defence research establishments. For security reasons it would not be appropriate to comment on the specific research projects.

Does the Minister accept that there has been a dangerous weakening in Britain's anti-submarine defences because of the declining effectiveness of towed array sonar and the hydrophone barrier? Will the Minister therefore give the research into long range low-frequency active sonar to which he has just referred the utmost priority and accompany it with design studies into a new generation of ships that are capable of deploying it?

The hon. Gentleman was not very accurate in referring to the declining effectiveness of towed array sonar. The towed array sonars in use are very effective. What has changed is that the latest Soviet submarines are a great deal quieter than earlier generations.

When does my hon. Friend expect to be in a position to make the decision to which he has referred, and when will the order for new sonar buoys be placed? Will he remember that the firm of Dowty's in my constituency has always done a brilliant job in such matters?

I am aware of the contribution made by firms in my hon. Friend's constituency to our sonar capacity. We have a steady programme of new sonar buoys and sonar equipment. The particular type of sonar involved in the question is currently the subject of a major research programme and has not yet reached the stage where we can make a decision to purchase.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to discuss with NATO colleagues the relative share of military expenditure borne by individual countries within the Alliance.

I shall have a number of opportunities later in the year for discussion with NATO colleagues on the sharing of risks, roles and responsibilities within the Alliance, including at the defence planning committee in December.

Why is the Secretary of State being so acquiescent and weak-willed about the United States' demands that Britain and other European members should pay a higher proportion of NATO's costs? Has he ever pointed out to the United States—or will he point: out to the United States—that Britain already pays disproportionately high amounts of NATO's costs? Are the British Government bailing out President Reagan's economic incompetence, with his budget and trade deficits? Most of NATO's policy decisions are made in the interests of the United States, so why does the Secretary of State not suggest that the United States pays most of the costs?

The United States does pay most of the costs. It pays more than any other member of NATO. It is worth noting that it does so because it takes the view that it is in the interests of defending the United States that Europe should be sound and solidly defended. It is my view, and that of the whole Alliance, that the European members should do more than they do at present, and I shall be encouraging them to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the American request is entirely reasonable and that the European countries should respond? Bearing in mind that there is already limited discreet French co-operation on air defence and related matters, although the French are not members of the military command, is my right hon. Friend confident that that can be extended, by a further limited amount at least, so that the pressure on the other contributors can be mitigated?

The European members of the Alliance have a major role to play in ensuring the defence of western Europe. The United States has drawn attention to that, and that matter has been dealt with by a NATO Alliance initiative to set in hand a study of the relative shares of the burden carried by Europeans and the United States. We hope to get a report of that study by the end of the year.

In view of the financial implications of our respective defence policies, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Government believe that conventional parity is compatible with flexible response?

Yes, it is a very compatible aim that we should get conventional weapons on each side down to parity, or much nearer to parity, while the whole question of the flexible response enables us to have a variable range of different types of major weapon to respond to whatever threat comes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important that the United States, as the largest contributor to NATO by far, should be reassured that Europe is prepared not merely to contribute to its own defence but to pay for it as well?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. It is remarkable that the United States is not only a full member of NATO but plays the largest part in providing resources for all of us to defend western Europe. That solidarity and that linkage across the Atlantic have prevented war for 40 years, and if the policy is maintained I see no reason why it should not continue to do that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely continued availability of Nevada as a test site for British nuclear weapons and as to the factors which will influence this.

Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Nevada test site will continue to be available for as far ahead as we can foresee. Any change to that position would have to be considered in the light of the needs and circumstances pertaining at the time.

Is the Minister aware that it is now 43 years since Hiroshima was bombed? Is it not time that we worked towards a comprehensive test ban treaty? Is it not also time that we stopped following the United States of America, made our own decisions and recognised that we do not really have an independent nuclear deterrent? We are very much dependent upon the United States of America, and we ought to start declaring some independence from it.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we continue to play a leading role in efforts towards balanced and verifiable disarmament. That will continue to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government. In that policy we are fully supported by the whole of the NATO Alliance, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said, shares the view that there is a need for flexible response.

Will my hon. Friend look at the question again and note that it is interesting that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should be worried about whether we shall continue to be able to test our nuclear deterrent? Does that not show a scintilla of sense that is unusual in the hon. Member for Walton?

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's view. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has his own special views on nuclear deterrence—to my mind he does not fully appreciate the nature of deterrence—and his views may be quite widely shared on the Opposition Benches.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding ex gratia payments for ex-service men and women seriously disabled by alleged negligence before 8 December 1986.

A number of representations have been received from the right hon. Gentleman and others.

Does the Minister agree that every service man and woman now has a right to sue for compensation if he or she is disabled as a result of negligence and that that right was won partly by the campaigning efforts of a group of severely disabled ex-service men who, ironically, are denied that right? Will the Minister reconsider his refusal to set up a trust fund to make ex gratia payments to ex-service men who are disabled but who do not have the right to sue?

I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that service men and women now have the right to sue for negligence. I pay tribute to him and to many other right hon. and hon. Members for the campaign that was waged to draw attention to this inequity. As was made clear during proceedings in the House, we have no intention of making that repeal retrospective, and that includes the application of the trust fund. But I can confirm that those ex-service men and women to whom he referred receive benefit payments from the DHSS and from the Ministry of Defence.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many serving men and women have made claims for damages since December 1986?

Yes. Since 8 December 1986 some 250 service men and women have made claims for damages and those cases are now in course of settlement.

Have not many of the nuclear test veterans and their families suffered terribly purely in the course of serving their country? Should not the Government provide proper compensation for those families?

The Government maintain that there is no evidence of any causal link between the nuclear tests that took place in Australia in the 1950s and any injuries or disease that may or may not be suffered by service men and women.

If there is negligence, surely an ex-service man or service men ought to be entitled to sue? What is so magical about the cut-off date? Is not the cut-off date causing grave damage and disturbance to those members of the services who otherwise would have perfectly valid claims?

That was just the reason why the Government decided to repeal the law to permit service men and women, effectively from 8 December 1986, to sue for damages, so I agree with my hon. Friend, but we cannot turn the clock back and make that repeal retrospective.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the possibility of F111s stationed in the United Kingdom carrying air-launched cruise missiles.

The United States Defence Secretary and I met at the NATO nuclear planning group meeting in April, when Ministers discussed the need to keep the Alliance's forces properly structured and up to date. No decisions on NATO force adjustments have yet been taken.

Has the Secretary of State seen the report in the recent Jane's Defence Weekly, which says that a fleet of Amrican FB 111A planes will be stationed here in 1989–90 and that they will be armed with short-range attack missiles and air-launched cruise missiles? Is that not a cynical attempt to subvert the recent arms control treaties?

I did see some report of that nature, but there is no truth in it. NATO is still considering a number of options for adjusting its remaining nuclear forces following the INF agreement. Options include possible redeployment to a number of European countries of longer-range dual-capable aircraft currently based in the United States, but no decisions have yet been taken. Deployment to Europe of strategic air-launched cruise missiles is not one of the matters under consideration.

Does not the INF accord enhance the importance for deterrence of air-launched systems such as the F111s stationed in this country? Is it not important that they should be able to continue to penetrate Warsaw pact air defences?

Yes. My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It is necessary that at all times we should have the capability in the NATO Alliance to respond to any level of attack. To do so we have to be able to penetrate Soviet territory. It is our policy to make sure that in the evolving situation of threat we are always able to do so.

In the light of the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes), conventional balance and flexible response are compatible. Is it not the case that it logically flows from that statement that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept air-launched cruise missiles as part of that flexible response?

I was talking about air-launched strategic cruise missiles. I made it clear that that was not one of the options. I have already made it clear that among the options that we are considering for the possible replacement of our nuclear free-fall bombs is an air-launched, air-to-ground cruise missile. That is perfectly well known, and we are still studying whether it will be possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to review with his colleagues in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the number of nuclear weapons carried by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ships; and if he will make a statement.

NATO Ministers regularly review the nuclear forces available to the Alliance, including sea-based weapons.

The Secretary of State would not be so complacent if he had read the recently published American report, entitled "Nuclear Warships and Naval Nuclear Weapons", which reveals that 16,000 nuclear bombs are currently sailing on the world's waterways—that is, 16,000 nuclear accidents waiting to happen in a nuclear traffic jam on the high seas. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, even within his policy, and even within his nuclear obsessions, there is a case for talking to the other side about a reduction in the sheer number of weapons that are currently sailing on the high seas?

I am sure that there must be better ways of trying to get headlines than that. The hon. Gentleman must come to terms with the fact that, as long as nuclear weapons exist, our security depends upon any aggressor being certain that it cannot attack us without the risk of receiving an attack in return. That is the basis of the maintenance of peace, which the Government and the NATO Alliance are successfully achieving at the moment.

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

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Paul Obeng, chairman of the Committee of Secretaries of Ghana.

I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister, who, in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, once again when abroad batted for Britain and for Barrow to try to secure the Canadian submarine order. After almost eight weeks on strike, pending further negotiations to settle the dispute, is it not time that local unions in Barrow balloted their members for a return to work?

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend said. I understand that management and unions are meeting today, and I hope that the dispute will be resolved. I share my hon. Friend's view that the strike is damaging to Britain and to our prospects of getting more orders from abroad. It is particularly damaging to Vickers, and it could even be damaging the prospect of getting more home orders, too.

Does the appointment of a new Secretary of State for Health mean that the Government are now ready to provide the actual cost of the nurses' pay award and the grading review?

Dividing the DHSS is something that many people have thought should have been done for some time. I was in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance when it was mooted that the two Departments should be put together. The two Departments together were more than one person could legitimately undertake. The burden was very great indeed, so we have separated them.

The pay review body said:

"the actual cost of our recommendations may well differ from our estimates".

We believe that the £803 million is sufficient to reach a fair implementation of the structural pay agreement. It is for the regions to determine how to allocate the funds to the districts. The main allocation of the central funds has already been made to the regions. It is for the regions to determine how to allocate funds to districts, because they are best placed to take account of local factors that may affect the outcome of the grading exercise. One of the problems is that the local health authorities are not getting on sufficiently rapidly with the regrading and, therefore, the nurses do not quite know where they are.

Do my right hon. Friend and her newly enlarged Cabinet plan to introduce legislation to abolish oaths of allegiance being sworn to the Crown and to replace them with democratic oaths? Does she not regard such a proposal as disloyal, if not treacherous? Is she surprised that a Bill has been introduced by a group of Members of the Labour party who expect that their candidate will win the next Labour leadership election on that basis?

I think that my hon. Friend has made his own point very effectively indeed.

In view of the deplorably short sighted decision not to give any further financial support to the HOTOL project, will the Prime Minister agree, first, to declassify the patents and, secondly, if any other Government are prepared to come forward in a collaborative project, that this Government will also support HOTOL?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the HOTOL project is only in its very early research stages, but I think that a contrary impression may have been given in certain newspapers. It is a concept of a space plane to reduce the cost of launching satellites. There is no question of this country being able to finance the research or production of such an enormous project, which would be in the order of £4 billion to £6 billion. We think that our research moneys could far better go to many other projects which would help our own people far more.

Following my right hon. Friend's recent involvement with the Tidy Britain Group, will she consider turning her energies towards the problems of noise in our streets? Does she agree that some of the noise coming from open car windows and transistors in the streets is deeply offensive and that legislation should now be considered to reduce that noise to much more acceptable levels?

I agree—[Interruption.]

Order. We should hear the answer.

Answering from this Dispatch Box, I agree with my hon. Friend about noise and how very difficult it can be to make oneself heard.

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

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

As the Prime Minister in her reshuffle has now made the Secretary of State in charge of the Department of Health and Social Security half the Minister that he once was, will she now sort out the mess in the Scottish Office? Is she aware that, on the one hand, there is no Law Officer or Agriculture Minister who can participate in debates in the House and, on the other, the one-man band from Stirling, for example, is responsible for education, for health, for social work, for sport and so on? He is not very good at it. To those have now been added agriculture, forestry and fishing. Will she turn her attention to a sensible and organised form of government in Scotland, for the first time in decades?

The Scottish Office works extremely well under one of the best Scottish Secretaries of State that it has ever had. It has an excellent team— [Interruption.] I point out to the hon. Gentleman, if I can be heard through the noise, which is such an awful example to schoolchildren, that the Scottish earnings are the third highest in Britain.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when she visited the Nottinghamshire coalfield in 1976 output stood at 2 tonnes per manshift? Today, under the leadership of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, output has reached over 5 tonnes per manshift. Recently, the Black Diamond of Sherwood Thoresby colliery broke the European weekly record for deep-mined coal, at 61,700 tonnes. Will my right hon. Friend take time in the next year to visit Nottinghamshire to see for herself how the Notts miners are preparing to meet the challenge of privatisation of the electricity industry?

Yes, Sir. The record that my hon. Friend mentions is quite outstanding and it is a great tribute to the UDM and all of those who work in the coal mine. It puts miners in a very good position to meet the challenges of the next decade. I shall certainly try to come up next year and give them my personal best wishes on their marvellous record.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread anger in the country at her appointment of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) as European Commissioner? Is she further aware that that appointment is regarded by the overwhelming majority of people as a pay-off for silence during the Westland affair?

The nomination—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to listen to answers.

The nomination of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is an excellent one——

Why did the right hon. Lady sack him then?

I believe——

Order. It is only fair that, when the Prime Minister has been asked a question, she is given an opportunity to answer it.

The Opposition cannot debate— they can only shout. That is why they shout. The nomination of my right hon. and learned Friend, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is an excellent one. I believe very strongly that we should put to Europe those who have had considerable experience of Cabinet office. My right hon. and learned Friend served in the Treasury as a Cabinet Minister, he served in the Home Office as a Cabinet Minister and he served in the Department of Trade and Industry as a Cabinet Minister. He will be very well placed to represent Britain at an extremely difficult and important time for the future of Europe and of the Commission. I hope that the Opposition will see fit to put up names that are as distinguished.

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

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

As the secretary of the ANZAC group, may I wish my right hon. Friend a successful visit to Australia at the end of the week? Will she confirm that while she is there she will not make any speeches critical of the Leader of the Opposition, that she will not make any tasteless jokes about his wife, that she will not swear at any Australian soldiers and that she will behave with a dignity that will forever elude the Leader of the Opposition?

I have no difficulty in giving the confirmation that my hon. Friend seeks.

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

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

The Prime Minister will be aware that although the closure of Dounreay is being phased over many years the job loss implications are worrying for the north of Scotland. Is she aware that we will not be satisfied by being fobbed off with the idea of a nuclear dump in the north of Scotland? Indeed, it might discourage many of the employment opportunities that we shall now have to develop in that part of the country.

I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates the strenuous efforts that we have made to phase out those job losses over a long period, because we are well aware of the problems of getting extra jobs in that area. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was such an enthusiast for nuclear energy. With regard to Nirex, we have not yet received a report from that organisation about the disposal of some of the waste.

To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to foreign terrorist organisations known to be in regular contact with the IRA having offices in the United Kingdom.

The IRA is a proscribed organisation in this country, and anyone who has a meeting with members of the IRA may be liable to prosecution under section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

Since the IRA, the ANC and SWAPO, as exemplified by the statement made by Mr. Sam Nujoma in Dublin last November, not only show interest in one another but support one another's tactics, and bearing in mind that the ANC is responsible for the murder of 600 black South Africans in the past two to three years, is it right that London should be an open haven for South African terrorist organisations, which are the self-confessed friends of the IRA?

The information that my hon. Friend has given about the links between those organisations will, of course, be investigated. As he knows, the other organisations that he has mentioned are not proscribed in this country. Therefore, the tradition is that anyone is free to express his political views, provided that he does so within the law. Of course, we condemn violence from whatever quarter it comes in South Africa. The only way in which progress can be made is by peaceful negotiation. The current talks on Angola and Namibia are encouraging in that respect.