To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on defence policy from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on defence policy from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.

Since last year's summer recess, I have received three letters, four petitions and one questionnaire from representatives of CND regarding aspects of defence policy.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pay CND the courtesies appropriate to its declining membership. Will he ensure that he does not listen too hard to its views, any more than he did on cruise missiles? As a result of his resistance to CND, we now have a multilateral intermediate nuclear forces agreement and we hope to achieve similar mutually beneficial agreements on other weapon systems.

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Although my disposition is normally to listen to everyone on all subjects, I am very glad that we did not listen to CND because if we had done so we should not have the current arms reductions.

As the debate on CND is one that my right hon. Friend clearly wins, will he undertake to challenge robustly CND's opposition to the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons because such modernisation may well be necessary to maintain deterrence and to negotiate from a position of strength?

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I have said, there may be arguments for having no weapons at all, although I do not accept them, but in my view there are no arguments for having weapons that are ineffective and out of date.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that he has received from CND a briefing on the competitive strategies doctrine? [Interruption] Yes, a briefing—and I am sure that the Secretary of State has read it. Did the Americans consult him about that doctrine and what are its likely effects on NATO strategy in relation to conventional arms talks?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I did, indeed, receive a piece of paper stating that it was a briefing on that matter and I found it interesting, as I always do. I do not think that the doctrine has any effect on the conventional arms talks which are a very specific set of talks with very specific objectives. Our objective is to achieve equal ceilings of conventional weapons at much lower levels than they are now. A very good start was made at the Vienna talks yesterday.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Government's success in pursuing a multilateral policy flies in the face of everything that CND has proposed? Does he share my concern that the SLD party—the old Liberals—seems to be riddled with CND members, including the current general secretary of CND, who is on the committee considering defence?

My hon. Friend has raised a very interesting point. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made some excellent remarks in the Navy debate last week. The only trouble was that they seemed to conflict diametrically with the views of the leader of his party who recently made it clear that he was against all nuclear weapons.

Does the Secretary of State recall that when he last answered questions in the House he was asked whether he was prepared to match the initiative of President Gorbachev in reducing nuclear weapons, and boasted that he had left President Gorbachev far behind as he had reduced the number of nuclear weapons in Britain by 30 per cent. Why was he pretending to be a unilateralist then but now he is a multilateralist?

I am not sure that I come into either of those categories. The point that I made then is equally valid today—that NATO has reduced its nuclear warheads by about 2,400 since 1979 and, as I understand it, Mr. Gorbachev recently announced that the number of Russia's systems has been reduced by about 24, so it seems to me that he has an awful long way to go.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made any assessment of the effect of contractorisatiÖn on the security of military depots.

Security is one of a number of factors taken into account in the assessment of proposals to contractorise activities at defence establishments. The subsequent effect of such measures on the security of those establishments is assessed by the commanding officer or head of establishment as part of their constant review of their security arrangements.

Is it not a matter of simple common sense that if long-serving, loyal civil servants in the Ministry of Defence are replaced by short-term contractors, that must involve increased security risks? In view of recent events, does not the Minister owe it to military establishments—I mention in particular COD Donnington in my own constituency—to listen to the overwhelming views of the work force, both civilian and military, and at the very least to put a freeze on existing contractorisation proposals and undertake a thorough, long-standing review before presenting any further plans?

No, we continue with contractorisation to give us value for money on the defence budget. There is no evidence that contractorisation increases security risks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at this time of IRA threats we shall be grateful for any assurances that he can give about the safety of our military camps? Will he assure the leader of the Liberal party, through his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), that Norton Manor Royal Marine camp in my constituency is safe and does not require the attentions of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)?

We keep the security systems on all our camps constantly under review. I am convinced that the Royal Marines are as capable as anyone of defending their camps.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relative priority, in terms of procurement expenditure, his Department gives to (a) the British Army of the Rhine and (b) warships for the Royal Navy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relative priority, in terms of procurement expenditure, his Department gives to (a) the British Army of the Rhine and (b) warships for the Royal Navy.

The balance of expenditure within the defence programme reflects the Government's defence policy as set out in successive statements on the Defence Estimates.

Does the Minister agree with Lord Carver that Britain should concentrate its commitment on British armed forces on the continent at the expense of the Navy, or does he agree with Sir Peter Stanford that the Navy has already shown its worth and should be given priority? Does the Minister agree that that unholy dispute within the military is the result of concentrating too many of our resources on nuclear weapons at the expense of conventional weapons? Is it not also due to the fact that the Government have neglected to undertake a proper defence review?

There is no need for a defence review. I agree with Lord Carver who, at the end of his recent lecture, said:

"It will not be, as it has never been, a choice for us between a maritime or a continental strategy, but a delicate judgment of how to apportion scarce resources between the two."

When Admiral Stanford asks where are the construction orders, how does the Secretary of State answer?

Construction orders will obviously follow. When it comes to ordering ships, we have not been backward in coming forward, and we have ordered a very large number.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when allocating resources, whether for the British Army of the Rhine or for the purchase of ships for the Navy, control of the skies must also be considered? Neither Army nor Navy operations can be much good unless we also control the skies. Is it not time that we advised the West German Government that, in controlling the skies, it is essential that our aircraft are permitted to operate at the same altitudes at which they will be required to operate during operational periods—particularly during a war?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is sad that the Opposition's question makes mention only of the British Army of the Rhine and of the Royal Navy and does not include the demands of the Royal Air Force, which we take into great consideration when deciding our priorities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the question is a particularly silly one? There is no more certain way of decoupling Germany from the alliance than to run down our presence on the continent. Equally, there is no easier way of convincing the Americans that we are not fully supporting them than to reduce our forces in the eastern Atlantic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pointed out, it is impossible to reduce the capabilities of the British Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force without causing political damage, irrespective of any military damage.

That is absolutely right. If the suggestion behind the original question is that we should run down the Royal Navy to support the Rhine Army one must bear in mind the critical role played by the Royal Navy in guaranteeing our reinforcement in wartime and in its anti-submarine warfare capability.

Does the Minister understand that the answers that he has given today, the answers that his officials gave to the Select Committee on Defence and, indeed, his answers to the House during the debate on the Royal Navy last week, have done nothing to allay the fear of many hon. Members that the surface fleet's frigates and destroyers are too few to enable the Royal Navy to fulfil its wartime or peacetime responsibilities and functions?

I think that the problem is that the Opposition refuse to believe that we are maintaining our commitment to about 50 ships. I must repeat what I said in the Navy debate—that I call 49 surface ships "about 50".

Are not the fears expressed by two very senior officers merely a symptom of the fears felt throughout the armed services that insufficient emphasis is placed on our conventional weapons? Will the Minister undertake a defence review so that the fears of those officers can be allayed?

The only justification for a defence review is when we do not have the resources to meet our commitments. An extra £20 billion has been spent in real terms since 1979, and there is no shor tage of resources to meet our existing commitments.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the role of the Territorial Army; and if he will make a statement.

The Ministry of Defence receives a great many representations about the Territorial Army, including its role, from a wide variety of sources. Careful note is taken of all those views. Where appropriate, they are fed into the continuing process of evaluation of the effectiveness of the TA, and the vital part that it plays in the defence of the nation.

When my hon. Friend is next in the north-west I hope that he will be able to visit the Bolton artillery unit, which has a long association with the town dating back to 1860. He would then appreciate the urgent need for new, larger premises. Will my hon. Friend press the Territorial Army premises unit to find larger premises and to respond more quickly to commercial opportunities as I understand that the unit has £2 million available to spend?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation to his constituency. He can be assured that North-West TAVR, which is responsible for TA accommodation in the area, is maintaining close contact with the local authority and estate agents in the Bolton district. I am aware of the long association of the Royal Artillery with Bolton. I confirm that we intend to find a site and that funds will be available to construct a suitable permanent centre for 216 air defence battery.

Why did Territorial Army manpower fall off so sharply in 1988?

It is true that we have suffered a small setback in our aim to reach an increased target, but our present level is none the less very much higher than it was when we came into power in 1979, increasing from 60,000 to 73,000. We have plans to attract more recruits and to retain more people in the Territorial Army. We have simplified administration and increased the tax-free bounties, and we have improved training. We have a major advertising campaign under way, which has already enhanced public awareness of the importance of the Territorial Army.

As the Territorial Army supplies 50 per cent. of the manpower but takes up less than 4 per cent. of the Army budget, does my hon. Friend agree that it represents extraordinarily good value for the taxpayer? As the birth rate is expected to decline towards the end of the decade, does my hon. Friend agree that the efforts of the employers' support groups in encouraging recruitment among young people will become more and more vital and deserve the congratulations of the House?

Yes, and I readily pay tribute to Tommy Macpherson and the national employment liaison committee and to the efforts that they are making to foster greater awareness among employers and to make more facilities available for people to serve in the Territorial Army which, as my hon. Friend says, has a vital part to play in peace and in war.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Denmark to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

I last met the Danish Defence Minister when he came to London, at my invitation, on 6 February. We discussed a range of issues of mutual interest, including SNF.

The Minister must be aware that the Danes share the disquiet of the West German Government about our modernisation plans. Will their views be taken fully into account, or will it again be a case of Granny knows best for Europe?

It will be for the Danish Government to decide their attitude when NATO comes to discuss the modernisation of the SNF. I spoke to the Danish Minister and it is worth recording that Denmark fully subscribes to NATO's strategy and nuclear deterrence, which is more than I can say for Her Majesty's Opposition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I recently had the opportunity to visit Denmark, Norway and Iceland to see NATO defences in that area? Is he further aware that while Denmark is a non-nuclear power it is a loyal member of the Alliance and its small forces would give a good account of themselves in the event of war?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Recently, at the last nuclear planning group meeting, Denmark fully subscribed to the principles contained in the communiqué, which made it clear that it was in full support of NATO strategy.

The Secretary of State says that Denmark fully subscribes to NATO strategy, but does it fully subscribe to the Prime Minister's plans for short-range modernisation in central Europe, as the Germans do not and most of Europe does not?

None of those countries has yet been called on to make a decision on the matter. They will all have to decide in due course what their views are, but there is a wide measure of agreement on a number of important principles. They are, first, that if we are to have weapons we must keep them up to date; secondly, that the Lance system will be obsolete by 1995; and, thirdly, that none of us wishes to see a third zero in nuclear weapons in Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the western nations, including Denmark, would be wise, when listening to what Russia says, to see what that country actually does before abandoning any plans that we may have to modernise short-range nuclear weapons, bearing in mind that Russia has a long way to go not just to abolish chemical weapons but even greatly to reduce its conventional weapons?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While we warmly welcome the change of climate in the Soviet Union and the willingness to discuss matters that it refused to discuss for many years, we must wait to see results from the suggestions that the Russians make. As I made clear earlier, from the point of view of reducing weapons, NATO has a much better record than the Soviet Union in having done so already.

The Secretary of State spoke of Montebello and of how important it was in relation to the reduction of weapons, but there were two elements in Montebello, one being the replacement of weapons. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks to his colleagues in western Europe, will he appreciate that there is no great enthusiasm for the early replacement of many of the systems which it was envisaged in 1983 would have to be replaced because the circumstances in Europe in particular and the world in general have changed considerably since then? Does he further agree that the Prime Minister's hectoring approach to the NATO allies is regarded as offensive and irrelevant in relation to the modernisation of those weapons?

The hon. Gentleman is right to remind all concerned that the Montebello decision was not just a decision to reduce nuclear weapons but to replace those that were aging or out of date. The only criterion as to whether weapons should be replaced is whether the existing ones are out of date and no longer usable. That is the position that we must face in relation to those systems which will become out of date soon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what nuclear weapons the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has scrapped over the past 10 years.

Since 1979 some 2,400 nuclear warheads—or some 35 per cent. of the land-based stockpile—have been unilaterally withdrawn from NATO Europe. In addition, under the INF treaty, some 400 deployed land-based nuclear missiles, together with their warheads, will be withdrawn from Europe by the Alliance by June 1991.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the last 10 years NATO, rather than the Warsaw pact, has taken nearly all the arms control initiatives? Will he warn some of his wobbly colleagues in the Alliance that when the Soviet Union finally lifts the seventh veil of its arms control striptease something rather nasty may be revealed?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I agree entirely that, in performance, there is simply no contest between NATO, which has managed to reduce its weapons systems while maintaining its security, and the Soviet Union, which until recently has done absolutely nothing in that regard. As to the future, we should be very wise to continue our successful policy of maintaining strong defences and forcing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. After all, that policy is working.

Will the Secretary of State, instead of looking back over the past 10 years—though it is natural that he should do so—try to look to the next five to 10 years and give us some insight into his views on the START negotiations? At this juncture the Soviet Union and the United States have both made gestures towards building down to 50 per cent. What meaningful contribution are the Government making to that process by proceeding to develop four Trident boats, all armed with D5s?

The START negotiations, on the whole, have been fairly encouraging, and we are fairly confident that, before very long, there will be agreement on a 50 per cent. reduction in the super-powers' strategic systems. That is very remarkable progress. So far as the British deterrent is concerned, everyone involved in negotiations—not least Mr. Gorbachev himself—has made it clear that it is not expected that the British deterrent or, for that matter, the French deterrent, will be included at the current stage. We have always made it clear that if, in the future, there is a major change in the line-up of the super-powers, if there is a 50 per cent. START reduction, if the conventional imbalances can be substantially reduced, and if there is a world ban on chemical weapons, we shall be prepared to see whether we can make a further contribution in respect of our deterrent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the promotion of Lt. General Gromov to his new key position means that, for the first time, NATO troops will face battle-hardened Soviet troops? Does not this make it even more important that NATO should keep its nuclear deterrent—particularly its short-range weapons—intact and modernised?

I have no doubt that those factors should all be taken into account. Undoubtedly, the ability of NATO to defend itself is a key factor in persuading all concerned to negotiate a reduction in weapons.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent decisions he has made in respect of procurement of a radar system for the European fighter aircraft.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent decisions he has made in respect of procurement of a radar system for the European fighter aircraft.

No decisions have been taken recently on the radar for EFA.

Will the Minister ensure that any decision that is made on new radar systems for European fighter aircraft will benefit Britain's electronic and radar industry? Does he not agree that the real choice is between a British system and a ravamped version of the old Hughes system? If the latter is chosen, will not that perhaps be the death knell for Britain's radar research base? Will the Minister therefore ensure that a British system is adopted?

I suspect that my hon. Friend recognises that it would be wrong for me to prejudge a decision of those who have the job of considering the present competitive bids. Of course, both bidders include British companies.

Does the Minister agree that he is under increasing pressure from both German and American interests to accept one of the off-the-shelf systems that are in use? If that is so, will it not be a severe body blow to the British electronics and radar industry, particularly the radar research base? If the Minister accepts that, exactly what does he intend to do to safeguard this vital British national interest?

I do not think that I recognise the competing bids in the description that the hon. Gentleman has given of an off-the-shelf developed system. He will be aware that we are awaiting a recommendation to the NATO European Fighter Management Agency, the international management agency, from Euro-Fighter. It would be wrong for me to anticipate that recommendation. We must wait to hear what it has to say about its assessment of the competing bids.

Does my hon. Friend agree, in order to safeguard the EFA project, that the most essential elements of any radar system are that it should work to specification and be available on time? Will those be the primary considerations which will be taken into account in deciding competing bids?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, a wide range of issues and aspects of the radar system have to be taken into account in assessing its ability to meet the requirement and its competitiveness. I am sure that all the issues will be properly taken into account. Clearly those that he mentioned are among the primary considerations.

When the decision is taken, will my hon. Friend take into account the export potential of EFA and any restrictions that may be imposed upon it by a particular choice?

I assure my hon. Friend that export potential is one of the issues which will be taken into account before a decision is made.

Is the Minister aware that the problems being created over the choice of radar are likely to endanger the whole project? Can he be more fulsome in indicating the true significance of that? While previously we were talking in terms of GEC-Marconi against Ferranti, the danger may now be that a German-backed GEC system, if not chosen, may be the rock on which the whole project founders. Will he confirm that the Government back EFA and will continue to support the British-led technology which lies at the heart of the radar system which many on this side of the House are prepared to support?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that all four collaborating nations entirely support the project. I can also confirm that they all share the stated aim, which is to achieve maximum commonality across the whole programme, including the radar system. That remains the objective. I do not think that I can add anything more about the radar while we are awaiting the recommendation from Euro Fighter to NEFMA. It is frustrating for the House that we have not had the recommendation. I cannot say more. We must be patient until we get the recommendation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received advocating a defence policy of reciprocal unilaterism.

The Ministry of Defence has received no letters on the subject of reciprocal unilaterialism since last year's summer recess. The Government share with our allies a security policy based on strength in defence and readiness for dialogue.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that reciprocal unilateralism is really a transparent sleight of hand by certain Opposition Members to defend the indefensible? Does he also agree that it is an attempt to conceal from the British public Labour party defence policies that are not only profoundly dangerous but that have been regarded as unrealistic by the Soviets themselves, and are proof positive that, far from the Labour party being able to run a defence policy for this country, it could not even run a bath?

My hon. Friend is right. I can see no difference between reciprocal unilateralism and the policy that the Opposition adopted at the last election which was robustly rejected by the electorate. What we are talking about is the hook on which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) finds herself—trying to reconcile her former chairmanship of CND with being on the Labour Front Bench at a time when the party is changing its policy.

Did not the Minister hear the Secretary of State say a few moments ago that NATO had unilaterally got rid of many weapons? The whole world knows that Gorbachev has taken a series of unilateral initiatives. Is it not the case that in so far as we are making progress on disarmament, it has been a process of reciprocal unilateralism?

I think that the hon. Lady is playing with words. We all know what unilateralism means to the Labour party. Labour supporters would get rid of our independent deterrent without expecting anything in return or, if there was something in return, it would be very minimal. They would leave us with nothing when our enemies would still have considerable nuclear capability.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is a multilateralist and, unlike 100 opposition Members, he has no plans to join CND? He will, therefore, have no use for a bilateral, unilateral and multilateral nuclear defence policy, whatever that means.

I certainly confirm that I have no intention of joining CND. It is quite interesting that the whole idea of reciprocal unilateralism was advocated by an American, Mr. Leonard Sullivan. He said, however, that, if the reciprocation did not come through, he believed that nations should go back to rebuilding their nuclear arsenals with up-to-date weapons. I cannot believe that that is what the hon. Lady the Member for Lewisham (Ms. Ruddock) is advocating.

Is the Minister not being completely hypocritical, because the Government have just indicated their endorsement of non-reciprocal unilateral short-range modernisation?

Hon. Members are continuing to play with words—[Interruption] We have always thought it necessary to keep our weapons up to date, otherwise there would be no point in having them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible for the Opposition to reconcile reality with the policies of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? The more the Opposition try to do so by their various policy somersaults, the more they demonstrate that they are completely unfit to govern this country, to keep our defences and to maintain the peace.

That is right. I do not believe that anyone in the country will be fooled by the Opposition's performance. Although the Opposition are trying to obscure what they are up to, they will end up leaving people bemused and certainly in no way convinced that they have a reputable policy with which to defend this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet General Scowcroft, United States national security adviser, to discuss defence matters.

I hope to meet General Scowcroft later in the year to discuss a wide range of matters of mutual interest.

When the Secretary of State meets General Scowcroft will one of the issues discussed be the seriousness of the West German Government's decision to postpone any decision on the modernisation of Lance until after their general election in two years' time? In such discussions, will the Secretary of State be taking the view of the Americans, who are forcing the pace on this issue, or that of the West Germans, on whose heads those missiles would fall if they ever had the misfortune to be fired?

I do not think that the West German Government have taken any such decision. There is, indeed, full agreement within the coalition of the West German Government that there should be no third zero, that there will need to be modernisation some time and that Lance will be out of date by about 1995. It is up to each Government to decide how they will react to the proposals which will eventually come before NATO. I cannot, of course, answer in advance for what the view of the West German Government may be.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm to General Scowcroft that this Government still regard America as a reliable and faithful ally, unlike many Opposition Members?

Of course, it is an essential part of NATO's success that the United States and, indeed, Canada are fully integrated as part of the Western Alliance. That is an important part of the security which we all enjoy.

If General Scowcroft asks whether this Government take seriously the threat of a Warsaw pact short-range missile attack on NATO fixed assets in Germany, will the Secretary of State answer yes or no?

I shall reply to the general to any of those questions that he knows, and I know, that we are both members of the same Alliance with exactly the same views on the strategy of that Alliance. There is no difference between us. That is the answer to all the questions that hon. Gentlemen have asked.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the accuracy of Mr. Gorbachev's statement that the Soviet chemical weapons stockpile is no more than 50,000 tonnes.

The Soviet claim that its stockpile of chemical warfare agents is no larger than 50,000 tonnes has not been backed up by any supporting data. We assess that total Soviet chemical warfare stocks are several times higher.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there was an unfortunate failure in glasnost when a British team visited Shikhany recently? Does he agree that in those circumstances we have to be extremely wary as to whether the Soviet Union is serious in its arms control negotiations?

That is absolutely right. We have every reason to believe that the facilities at Shikhany have the capability of manufacturing serious quantities of chemical weapons. When our people asked to see the manufacturing facilities they were told that these were commercial, that they would have no interest in looking round them, and they were prevented from doing so. So this certainly was not an example of glasnost.

In calling for the dismantling of Soviet stocks of chemical weapons, what action will the Minister take towards countries such as Iraq which have used chemical weapons in the recent past? Will he ensure that the maximum possible sanctions are taken against them to show our abhorrence of all chemical weapons wherever they are and by whomsoever they are used?

We are, of course, looking for a global ban on chemical weapons and verification will be a critical element of this. This must include all countries that are signatories to that global ban. So the whole business of verification is something on which we will concentrate, not only with regard to the Soviet Union.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the NATO and independent assessment of the chemical weapons stockpile of the Soviet Union is not 50,000 tonnes but 300,000 tonnes? Will he also confirm that it is NATO's objective to have a verifiable assessment of chemical stockpiles both in our country and elsewhere?

That is absolutely right. Our estimates of Soviet stocks are very much higher than 50,000 tonnes; 50,000 tonnes is the biggest quantity of chemical weapons held by any country in the world anyway, and our estimates are considerably larger than that. Certainly, we shall need to have a much greater exchange of information, visits and so forth, to be in a clearer position to know how much is held by each side.

Including the Soviet Union and the United States of America there are about 20 countries with a chemical weapon capability and the world would undoubtedly be a safer place if there were no chemical weapons at all. Will the Minister assure the House that to help to achieve this he will do all that he can to encourage the early completion of the treaty on chemical weapons at Geneva, agree to tough verification procedures carried out by the United Nations and encourage stringent economic and trade sanctions against any country that uses chemical weapons? The mass of the people of the United Kingdom want an end to these obscene weapons, and that means more and resolute action by the Government.

As my right hon. Friend has already said, it is one of our priorities that a global ban treaty should be achieved as quickly as possible. Certainly, everything will be done to get the global ban agreed and the verification for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.

Bearing in mind the very large stockpiles of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union and the fact that the United Kingdom unilaterally gave up its chemical warfare capability back in the 1950s, does this not make nonsense of the policies advocated by the CND and others on any kind of unilateralism? Do we not want to go for worldwide disarmament of chemical weapons?

That is absolutely right. This is an example of unilateral disarmament certainly not working, and it was not reciprocal either.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on Her Majesty's Government policy on the circumstances in which United Kingdom nuclear weapons may be used against (1) a non-nuclear state and (2) another nuclear nation.

I am not aware of any such representations.

Is not the reason why the Minister is unable to, or will not, answer that question that the Americans will not let him? Is not the truth of the matter that the fingers of George Bush and Daniel Quayle are nearer to Britain's nuclear button than those of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence will ever be?

The question asked was what representations we had received. My answer was that I was not aware of any such representations. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have an independent nuclear deterrent and that we have our own control over it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of time between charges being made and verdicts being delivered in courts-martial.

The length of time elapsing between charges being made and verdicts being delivered varies from case to case. Records are not maintained in a form that would permit accurate calculation of the average time without incurring disproportionate cost.

Will my hon. Friend look at the efficiency of the Army legal service? Can he say why nine months elapsed between my constituent ex-Warrant Officer Newbery's cancellation of release and the time he was charged? He was subsequently acquitted but his life was in ruins.

Warrant Officer Newbery was charged not with the theft of £700 but on ten counts of false accounting relating to a period between December 1984 and March 1986. The investigation that preceded the charges being brought required the services of a specialist accountant—a trained royal military police officer. There are few such people and their time is much in demand.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the annual cost to his Department of unreliable weapons, aircraft and military equipment.

We attach very considerable importance to reliability of equipment, which is a key feature of our procurement policy. A broad brush estimate of the cost of appropriate elements of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance for the RAF, and for similar work for the Navy and Army, was given as more than £1 billion in a recent Comptroller and Auditor General's report. As the report recognised, that figure does not indicate the amount that could be saved by better reliability, nor does it take account of the extremely rigorous maintenance policy that we operate in order to maintain the highest standards of safety. However, we believe that the costs of unreliability can be reduced. A number of measures have already been taken to bring about improvements in reliability, and more are in hand.

I thank the Minister for that lengthy reply. Is it not true that £1 billion of taxpayers' money a year is wasted? Is it not also true that the fast jets of the RAF are grounded for 50 per cent. of the time, which is a total waste of taxpayers' money? Is it not about time that the Government did something about that?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I gave a negative reply and I hope that, on reflection, he will realise that it was positive. I should point out that on a broad assessment of the value of the aircraft that the RAF flies, unscheduled maintenance comes to only 2 per cent. of that cost—the equivalent to spending £120 a year on the maintenance of a Metro.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended the closing session of the ozone layer conference. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Does the Prime Minister think that the EC was right to refuse to allow her Secretary of State exemption from the legal requirement to provide pure water? Is not the real protector of the environment in Britain proving to be the EC, not the rhetoric of her Government?

We are wholly committed to achieving compliance with the EC drinking water directive as soon as is practicable. Obviously, a great deal of capital investment—which Labour cut and we have increased—is involved. For the purpose of accuracy, may I say that we know of no change with the EC from that previously reported? Matters are still under consideration.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today during her busy schedule, to consider the press publicity surrounding the libel court case brought by two of my constituents—Mrs. Warby and Mrs. Chastell—against Tesco in relation to an alleged shoplifting offence in 1984, of which they were acquitted in 1985? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Lord Chancellor to respond swiftly to my letter to him asking him to investigate the case and the associated legislation? There is no doubt that there is grave concern amongst the general public that the people who sought to clear their names are suddenly finding themselves liable to pay substantial sums in costs to the unsuccessful party.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this case. However, as she knows, we are totally unable to interfere with a judicial decision. As she will be aware, the costs are at the discretion of the courts. The Lord Chancellor will consider the issues raised by this case. My hon. Friend will know that some of the proposals which he put forward in the Green Paper might be of assistance in such a case.

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on speaking for the whole country on Saturday morning, when she attacked her Secretary of State for the Environment?—[Interruption.] When is the Prime Minister going to sack him?

May I advise the right hon. Gentleman to listen to an interview that I gave to Channel 4, in which I pointed out that our Secretary of State for the Environment—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Our?"] My right hon. Friend, ours on this side—[Interruption.]

Order The Prime Minister is replying.

I pointed out that he is one of the people most fitted for the job—whether it be in architecture, art or in the fact that he is a civil engineer, and therefore knows a good deal more about the subject than the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend has a superb record. I am so grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the chance to point out that my right hon. Friend is absolutely first class in every way.

Obviously, we are not amused. If the right hon. Gentleman is one of the best Secretaries of State for the Environment that we have ever had, why does the Prime Minister feel it necessary to take charge herself?

The right hon. Gentleman is not expected to be amused; he is expected to recognise outstanding talent when he sees it. For his information, I have not taken charge of water privatisation. It is we who have put forward money—[Horn. MEMBERS: "We?"] Yes, we on this side of the House. This Government have poured money into investment in water. It was the Labour party that cut it.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the NATO proposals for reductions in conventional forces in Europe which were tabled yesterday by our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary? Will she wish the Vienna negotiations every success?

Yes, I welcome the proposals that were tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday. They would set equal ceilings for NATO and the Warsaw pact on tanks, artillery and armoured troop carriers. They would require the Warsaw pact to make greater reductions than NATO, because the pact has far higher numbers of these weapons. Even after the unilateral reductions announced by Mr. Gorbachev at the United Nations, the Warsaw pact's superiority will still be of the order of two to one. We shall need to continue to keep weapons—conventional and nuclear—up to date to ensure effective deterrence.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that if basic old-age pensions had been uprated in line with earnings since 1979, a single person's pension would now be £48·80 instead of the present £41·15, and a married couple's pension would be £78·15, instead of the present £65·90? Will she therefore instruct the Chancellor, when he produces his Budget speech, to uprate pensions instead of giving away millions of pounds to rich people in tax handouts?

In the last uprating that the Labour Government did before 1979, they did not uprate pensions in line with earnings. It was left to us to do that. Although that Government put the discretion to do so into their legislation, they introduced a national incomes policy which cut earnings and even cut the real wages of many people in the public services. We have done much better, by keeping pensions uprated in line with the retail prices index.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

Following my right hon. Friend's speech to the closing session of the conference on protecting the ozone layer, would it not be an appropriate time for me to add—and I believe that I share this view with other Conservative Members—my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and the Government on taking the initiative in calling and organising the conference? I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that it has attracted a considerably larger commitment of nations to the Montreal protocol and has also drawn acceptance that there is a shared environmental responsibility among all nations, not just some.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The conference was extremely successful and surpassed all expectations. It was stimulating and was enjoyed by everyone present. When we began, 33 nations had signed the Montreal protocol. In the course of the conference, 20 other nations agreed to sign it and 14 more, including China, are considering that seriously. Altogether, it was a very successful operation which made it clear that the co-operation and action of all nations and all peoples is required.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

When does the Prime Minister plan to visit Glasgow Royal infirmary?

Not next week and not immediately.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's attempts to make political capital out of the recent rail tragedies are deplorable and will be deplored by the vast majority of people? Does she agree that people should wait for the report of the independent inquiry before making comments on those tragedies?

All three recent accidents caused great personal tragedies and great concern to everyone, especially those who work for British Rail. As for trying to find the causes of the accidents, we must await the official inquiries and not attempt, in any way, to postulate the causes. As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited the hospitals in both Clapham and Purley and I very much regret that I shall be unable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—under present plans to visit the third one.

Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to build—[Interruption.]

Order. Interruptions take up a lot of time.

Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to build on the welcome success of the ozone layer conference, worldwide action is needed and that that will require an understanding of the special problems of developing countries in ending the use of CFCs? Will the Prime Minister commit her Government to being equally active in putting together the co-operation of the industrial nations to provide the resources necessary for the Third world countries, especially India and China, so that they can sign the Montreal protocol as soon as possible?

I indicated that China is thinking of signing the Montreal protocol. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, at present our own industries are finding more ozone-friendly chemicals. They are either ozone-friendly and less damaging than the present CFCs or ozone-benign and eliminate that particular problem altogether. There are few chemical concerns that sell them, so they will have the main sales. There are some factories in other countries that have started on that production, but I see no reason why the substitute chemicals should cost very much more than the present ones. With regard to our multilateral aid programmes through the World Bank and through Europe, we shall have regard to environmental considerations in deciding our priorities. The same will be true of our bilateral aid programme.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement by Guy's hospital that it is considering applying for self-governing status? Will she confirm that self-governing hospitals will remain an integral part of our Health Service?

I confirm that self-governing hospitals will remain part of the National Health Service. They are not opting out; they are self-governing within the National Health Service, financed by the taxpayer according to the services that they perform. I believe that under that different system of administration doctors and nurses will have more freedom to harness their skills and dedication and to improve services to patients.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Glasgow train accident took place in my constituency? I find it rather sickening that she is not prepared to visit the Glasgow royal infirmary, where the victims of the crash now are, although she has visited other hospitals with the cameras rolling. Surely she should stop ambulance-chasing and get on with doing something for public safety.

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I have gone to the scene of every accident when it has been possible for me to do so. I was able to go to Piper Alpha, and twice to Lockerbie. I must, however, have regard to my other engagements. I very much regret that on this occasion I have no plans at present to go to Glasgow, but I fully understand the tragedies that have been brought about. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is on hand to visit patients.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that membership of a trade union should be on a purely voluntary basis? If so, does she think that it is about time that we did away with the iniquitous closed shop?

In principle, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is considering whether any further legislation is advisable.

Will the Prime Minister join my colleagues and me in condemning the recent escalation in arson attacks on properties in Wales? Will she ensure that adequate resources are available to the North Wales and other police forces, so that those responsible for these dastardly crimes are apprehended before anyone is killed?

I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in condemning those attacks utterly. We shall do all that we can to ensure that the necessary police forces are there.