To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are currently deployed in the Gulf; and what impact this has on their availability for other duties.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are currently deployed in the Gulf; and what impact this has on their availability for other duties.

There are currently three Royal Navy ships and one Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel deployed in the area of the Gulf. The Royal Navy's commitment in the Gulf inevitably limits the availability of ships for other tasks. All the vessels could, however, be recalled in support of NATO in the event of an emergency.

Does the Minister agree that the time is approaching when we should consider reducing our military presence in the Gulf? As the Iran-Iraq war is over and the risks to commercial shipping have been considerably lessened, the reduction would not simply be a goodwill gesture—which I believe is needed—but would release Royal Navy vessels for other areas where they might be required.

I remind the hon. Lady that no treaty has been signed to end that war. We believe that it would be inappropriate to begin to withdraw our commitment before that happens. However, these matters are constantly kept under review.

Will the Minister convey my thanks to all the personnel who served in the Gulf during that extremely difficult period? Will he assure the House that the vessels will be fully repaired and maintained when they are pulled back to the United Kingdom? Some of the Fleet Auxiliaries will be ready for major refits. When will the contract for HMS Southampton be announced?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when the contract for HMS Southampton will be announced.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) suggested, will my hon. Friend the Minister please ensure that our presence in the Gulf—it has been in the area now for nine years, it has been unobtrusive and highly professional and it has acted well in the cause of preserving the peace—is not allowed to fall below the level which my hon. Friend considers necessary?

I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. It is very important that we maintain a presence in the Gulf for the foreseeable future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should maintain a presence there because we owe it to all those who gave their lives in north Africa and in the middle east in the defence of the oil supplies so that the United Kingdom could continue the war against Hitler? Our presence in the Gulf and in north Africa was necessary then and it would be quite wrong now, just because there happens to be a temporary cessation of hostilities in the area, to reduce that essential presence which safeguards the traffic routes.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to see significantly greater reductions in the tension in the area. It would be good if a peace treaty could be arrived at between Iran and Iraq and the area made more secure than it is today. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the sacrifices that people made in the past to ensure that the oil flowed.

What information has the Minister about the number of ships which have re-flagged to take advantage of the protection provided by the Armilla patrol? Is it not now time to ask the owners or nations from which those ships originally re-flagged to pay a contribution? Why should the British taxpayer have to pay for other ships to be escorted through the Gulf?.

In general terms, we believe that the patrol has made a valuable contribution to the security of the area. Although there was a degree of re-flagging, we cannot ask for contributions from nations. We have made an important contribution to the security of the area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to the Geneva negotiations on a chemical weapons convention.

The negotiation of a comprehensive, global and effectively verifiable ban on chemical weapons is a major Government and NATO arms control priority. As the House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary takes the lead on this and other arms control negotiations. However, my Department contributes in a number of ways to the Geneva negotiations, particularly through the provision of military, technical and scientific advice both in Geneva and, by close liaison with the Foreign Office in London.

Is not my right hon. Friend as puzzled as I am that in all the time that the Russians recently spent in Britain they never once sought to refute the allegations, widely carried in the British press, that their stockpile of chemical weapons is some 10 times the size that they claim? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that there was a little more glasnost from the Soviet Union with regard to its chemical weapon capability?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I think my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that issue last week with Mr. Gorbachev and took the opportunity to emphasise our commitment to a global and verifiable ban. However, Mr. Gorbachev produced no further information on that matter.

Does the Secretary of State think that the Government's position is helped by the fact that increasing evidence—some of which has been verified by his Department—of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against its own Kurdish civilian population is being greeted in the United Kingdom not by proper condemnation but by a doubling of trade credit to Iraq?

I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, but some evidence has been put about of the use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish minority by Iraq. We would regard that as a serious matter because chemical weapons are undesirable in all circumstances.

Did Mr. Gorbachev, in his welcome discussions here, offer to open up to international inspection those parts of the Soviet Union's chemical weapons supply which were not opened up to us as promised during our last visit to the Soviet Union?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point but I am afraid that no such offer has been made. As it is a long time since Britain possessed any chemical weapons, it is disappointing that in the new climate of openness which is supposed to exist there does not yet seem to be openness on the subject of chemical weapons, which we believe should be banned on a world-wide basis.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement there is with the United States of America about sharing early warning information from Fylingdales early warning station and ensuring it can be used independently by the United Kingdom Government.

The ballistic missile early warning system at Fylingdales is under RAF command and control. Early warning information from the system is disseminated in parallel to the United Kingdom and United States authorities for their own use without restriction.

Does the Minister accept that the United States has done all the modernisation? Is he confident that the United States would pass on information to the British Government if the British Government were contemplating using Trident in some way of which the United States did not approve? Surely if we are to have a credible deterrent of our own we should have our own early warning system and not be dependent on the Americans who might not pass on the information. Or is all that now irrelevant? Have we a guarantee from the Soviet Union that if it intends to launch any missiles at us it will ring up and tell us?

The hon. Gentleman is working on the wrong assumption. We share the information that comes from Fylingdales. We receive it in parallel, so there is no question of one nation having it and giving it to the other, or vice versa. The costs of modernisation are also being shared. The United States will be paying for the radar and we shall be paying for the infrastructure that goes with it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the RAF operates Fylingdales early warning station, so we can ensure that we obtain information from it—and we do.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the question is flawed because the international early warning system, in which Fylingdales plays so important a part, is based on the principle of mutual corroboration? Will he take this opportunity to send to the men and women who have worked throughout the past 25 years at RAF Fylingdales, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently, his congratulations on the expertise and professionalism with which they conduct their task?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and I will pass on his message of congratulation on a job extremely well done.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the Belgian Defence Minister; and what matters will be discussed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the Belgian Defence Minister; and what matters will be discussed.

I met Mr. Coeme yesterday. We discussed a range of subjects of mutual defence interest.

As the Belgian Government do not share the British Government's obsession with modernising nuclear weapons, can the Secretary of State tell us whether they are starry-eyed idealists or dupes of Moscow?

The hon. Lady is not correct in her assumption. It was made perfectly clear to me that the Belgian Government entirely subscribe to NATO's deterrent strategy. They also fully agree that weapons systems must be kept up to date. They are also strongly against any idea of a third zero in shorter-range weapons.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when he next meets his Belgian counterpart he will be able to say that the United Kingdom—in concert, one hopes, with the other NORTHAG partner, the Dutch—has either agreed a defined specification for a new light attack helicopter or has procured the Apache AH64, as NORTHAG badly needs improved anti-armour capability and as the Belgians have recently procured about 50 Agusta 109 utility helicopters?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but that subject was not raised either by me or by Mr. Coeme in our discussions yesterday. The Belgian air force has a number of collaborative projects with NATO, particularly in respect of training.

In view of the Belgian Government's well-publicised attitude, is not a consequence of enforced modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons at this time likely to be a weakening of the North Atlantic Alliance which may possibly result in Federal Germany being driven towards neutralism? What account of those risks do the Government take in their policy on that issue?

Those matters must all be carefully discussed and taken into account before any decisions are reached on keeping up to date the weapons that NATO has. It is worth remembering that the Soviet Union has itself modernised at least 95 per cent. of its shorter-range weapons in recent years. We must be careful not to leave it with an incovenanted advantage.

As the Belgians are taking over the presidency of the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union from us, when my right hon. Friend next meets the Belgian Defence Minister will he try to build on the excellent out-of-area co-operation that we saw in the Gulf so that we have some sort of set plan if anything similar occurs in the future?

Yes, that matter was covered in the Western European Union ministerial meeting last week, when it was decided that the operations jointly undertaken in the Gulf were extremely successful and a good example of the way in which European nations can co-operate. We shall bear in mind that a similar form of organisation might be available in future needs for out-of-area activities.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that at the forthcoming NATO summit, the Belgian Government will not support the early modernisation of short-range weapons and will not contribute to any process by which a signal could be given to the American Congress that a replacement for Lance would be the unanimous wish of NATO?

That matter was certainly not covered in my discussions yesterday. It is for the Belgian Government to explain their own attitude. I understand that the Belgian Prime Minister is doing that in the Belgian Parliament today. I think that he had better do that himself, in his own language. As to Belgium's position in the Alliance, the hon. Gentleman will know that Belgium has been a very sound ally in NATO and totally subscribes to NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence based on nuclear weapons.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what anti-armour weapon systems are available to the British Army of the Rhine.

The British Army of the Rhine has a balance of anti-armour systems which includes Challenger and Chieftain main battle tanks; Lynx helicopters armed with TOW missiles; Swingfire and Milan missiles; infantry anti-tank weapons; and mines.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the proposed cuts in Warsaw pact conventional forces. its capability for sudden, large-scale offensive operations remains strong? That being so, are not the British Government absolutely right in maintaining a mix of anti-armour weapons systems, including tanks and helicopters, to meet this ever-present threat?

My hon. Friend is right. It has long been a feature of the Warsaw pact forces that they have a large predominance of assault and rapid attack forces, particularly main battle tanks. My hon. Friend is right to say that our assessments conclude that the right way to counter tanks is with a balance of anti-armour weapons.

Will the Minister confirm that there is concern in the British Army of the Rhine about its ability to defend itself against Warsaw pact tanks? Will he also confirm that there are even greater symmetries on both sides in anti-tank weapons than in tanks, and that there is an impressive improvement in Soviet tank technology? Does he agree that the answer may lie not so much in more weapons in any of the categories that he mentioned but in smarter ones? What is the present position on Trigat development?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that not only are the latest Soviet battle tanks highly capable, and have explosive-reactive armour, but there has been a pattern over the years of new and improved Soviet main battle tanks arriving at regular intervals. At the moment we assess that our current equipment can match the present threat, and we have invested in a number of improvements which are under way, including—as the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies—medium-range and long-range Trigat, which will play an important part in future anti-tank battle.

Will my hon. Friend explain why both the United States and the German armed forces give a much higher priority to the use of helicopters in an anti-tank role than we do within our Rhine army?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are currently assessing and keeping closely under review the role of the helicopter in anti-tank battle. Some of our NATO allies, for reasons of their own, decide to give more predominance to helicopters. This is an important subject and one that we are keeping closely under review.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on conventional forces since 1978–79.

Up to the end of the financial year 1987–88, some £20 billion more had been spent, in real terms, on conventional forces than if spending had continued at 1978–79 levels. This figure takes into account GDP inflation during the intervening period and excludes. the costs of both the Falklands garrison and nuclear strategic forces.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 95 per cent. of the increase in defence spending since 1978–79 has gone towards conventional forces? Will he give some examples of how this additional money for conventional forces has been spent?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the figure represents an enormous increase in the resources provided by the Government for conventional weapons, and has enabled us to provide resources, including 64 new ships, seven regiments of Challenger tanks and more than 500 new aircraft for the RAF.

Is it not a plain fact that the present level of defence expenditure in this country, the United States and the Soviet Union is far beyond that which is either necessary or possible for those countries to bear? Is it not clear that when Mr. Gorbachev says he wants to disarm, the reason why people believe him is because he also says that he wants to raise the standard of living of the Soviet people, which is what they want? There is now a much greater awareness in Britain that the present level of defence expenditure is starving the Health Service, education, the housing programme and other public services of the funds that they so urgently need.

There cannot be anything more urgent than ensuring that the country is safe and the people protected. However, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will fully realise, if he thinks about it, thanks to the Government's policies and NATO, we are now able to negotiate reductions in weapons with the Soviet Union from a position of safety without imperilling our own security. The right hon. Gentleman should be pleased about that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he announced should put an end to suggestions that conventional armed forces have been starved of funds because of our deployment of Trident and other nuclear weapons?

My hon. and learned Friend is correct. As I have said all along, the Trident programme is not only necessary but extremely good value for money. We have managed not only to achieve that but to make an enormous increase in the provision of conventional weapons at the same time.

Surely the Secretary of State heard President Gorbachev spell out once again at the Guildhall last Friday the unilateral reductions that Russia is making in conventional forces and call on the rest of the world to do the same. As an excellent opportunity arose in the talks following the Vienna agreement, should not the Secretary of State, instead of boasting about excessive expenditure, be taking positive initiatives to ensure that we help the world to achieve lasting peace?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times. Mr. Gorbachev spelt out some of his proposed reductions, which we warmly welcome, but he did not mention that while he has been talking about reductions we have been making them. We have reduced our nuclear warheads in Europe by over one third in the past 10 years, which is the other side of the equation that the hon. Gentleman should ponder.

Despite what has been said recently, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a big difference between the conventional forces of the Warsaw pact and those of NATO and a total imbalance in chemical weapons?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a large difference. Even supposing that the Soviet Union had completed all the reductions that it has proposed but not yet effected, there would still be an enormous disparity against the West in tanks, guns and aircraft. None of the figures produced last week were able to counter that.

The Secretary of State wants the penny and the bun. First, he boasted of how much more the Government were spending on defence, but then he said "Look how much we have reduced expenditure." He cannot have it both ways. Without boasting of the achievements of the Labour Government, is it not true that many of the decisions that resulted in the present level of conventional spending were taken in 1978 by Lord Mulley and that, contrary to what the Secretary of State would have the House believe, spending on conventional defence expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product is declining and is forecast to do so in the White Paper?

The hon. Gentleman will know better than I precisely what decisions the previous Labour Government took, but it is clear that they did not provide the resources to carry them through. This Government, because of a much increased gross domestic product, have been able to provide extra money, which has enabled our forces not only to be properly paid but to have modern, new equipment, which they were denied by the cuts made by the Labour Administration.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last had discussions with the chief of general staff regarding recruiting levels in the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, and the co-operation of employers in releasing employees for training.

Consultation on recruitment and employer support, as with other matters relating to the Territorial Army, is a continuous process through the formal Ministry of Defence committee structure and normal official channels. As regards employer support, we launched a major campaign last year, recommended by the national employer liaison committee, and I am pleased to say that the response thus far has been very encouraging, with more than 500 companies pledging their firm support to the reserve forces.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Territorial associations are being allocated adequate resources to support and sustain the successful campaign that he mentioned? Does he agree that the so-called demographic trough makes it especially important to maintain effective follow-up with employers for volunteers?

Yes, I can confirm that there is full Government commitment to the financing of our present Territorial strength and, in particular, the number of man training days planned. As I said, we are very encouraged at the response from employers, because the 500 companies already signed up represent 30 per cent. of the national private sector work force, and when this is combined with the home Civil Service and the Scottish Office, it represents a substantial sector of employment. We intend to pursue this policy and to tackle smaller firms and professional partnerships as well.

Will the Minister agree that, if money is to be spent effectively, members of the Territorial Army have a right to form trade unions, or is that extending democracy too far?

I have to respond that that is not part of our tradition, and long may it remain so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that important aspects of retention in the Territorial Army include not just the very generous level of bounty and payment, but the opportunities to train with Regular units and to partake in exercises which, more often than not, are with the British Army of the Rhine rather than Salisbury plain or Otterburn training area?

My hon. Friend experiences that opportunity and takes full advantage of it. It is a fact that the Territorials are equipped, as are the Regulars, for their role, and this means that they have the most modern equipment and are constantly kept in the forefront of our battle plans.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Royal Air Force Bruggen.

I last visited RAF Bruggen in 1986 and I have no plans to visit the station again in the near future.

Is the Minister seeking to replace the free-fall nuclear WE177 bomb, which is used on Tornado aircraft from RAF Bruggen, and will the replacement be capable of use in areas of central Europe, where the use of nuclear weapons is now restricted by the INF agreement?

The hon. Gentleman is slightly misconceiving the INF agreement, which outlaws a certain type of missile—a land-based missile with a range of over 500 km— anywhere in the world. It does not, unfortunately, control where such missiles, should they exist, would land. The replacement of the free-fall bombs will be necessary by the mid-1990s, because the present weapons systems will have become out of date and unsuitable for use.

Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is necessary to replace these free-fall weapons not only because the present generation will have become out of date, but because the Russians have a similar weapon and we need one to maintain our deterrent effect into the next century with the Tornado aircraft?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Soviet Union is equipping itself with air-launched air-to-ground missiles. It is also worth reminding the House that over the past five years the Russians have modernised 95 per cent. of their shorter-range missiles, including SS21s, Scud launchers and Frog 7 launchers. They have all been modernised in the Warsaw pact, and that is something we must therefore take account of.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as to whether the Soviet Union is abandoning its concept of the deep battle.

In the last two years Soviet statements have claimed that its military doctrine is now of an exclusively defensive nature. Although we welcome such statements, it should not be forgotten that the Soviets still retain the capability to conduct operations deep into NATO territory and to launch a surprise attack.

Will my hon. Friend agree that the conclusion to be drawn from his answer is that, however welcome the latest proposed reductions in Soviet armed forces may be, the forces of NATO must continue to be fully prepared and fully modernised? Can he tell us anything of how radical the changes in Warsaw pact organisation, doctrine and equipment would have to be For it to be said that the pact had changed from an offensive to a defensive military posture?

There would of course have to be major structural changes in the deployment of Soviet forces and their training would have to change as well. So it would mean a complete change throughout the whole of the Soviet military structure.

Is this word "modernisation" not jargon for cheating on the INF agreement? Will not the 133 non-nuclear nations who were signatories to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty change their minds about not deploying or manufacturing nuclear weapons if the United Kingdom starts to cheat in an atmosphere of mutual peace and force reductions generated by the Soviet Union? Would that not be a very dangerous step, and will the Government stop cheating and think again?

There is no question of the United Kingdom cheating on the INF treaty. The problems of the non-proliferation treaty have been with us for some time. We suspect that there are countries that are deploying the nuclear capability. That is regrettable.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Russian forces, particularly the naval forces, are changing their tactics and that the British armed forces need to respond? Has there been a major review of Royal Navy equipment and tactics, particularly as the Soviet Union has decided to keep its naval forces deployed in a defensive rather than in a blue sea role?

My hon. Friend must be careful. The fact that the Soviets may be exercising their naval forces rather less than they did in the past may be for reasons of economy. It does not mean that they are reducing their capability, which is what we must judge them by.

In view of the Minister's answers, will he do the House the courtesy of answering the question that the Secretary of State refused to answer at the last defence Question Time? Do the Government take seriously the threat of a Warsaw pact short-range nuclear attack on NATO's fixed assets in Germany?.

The Government take seriously and place importance on a flexible response. We believe that we should have modern and up-to-date weapons to respond over a whole range of different capabilities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to meet the Secretary of Defence of the United States of America to discuss matters of mutual interest.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to meet his new United States of America counterpart; and what matters will be discussed.

I hope to meet Mr. Cheney at the meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group in Brussels next week to discuss a range of matters of mutual interest.

May I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to raise with Mr. Cheney the incident relating to the Soviet submarine at the weekend? Is there not a need to reach an international agreement and understanding, particularly among those powers that have nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered submarines, that there should be disclosure about what happens to such vessels when an accident or an incident takes place? Is it not essential that vessels of this type should not fall into the hands of people like Gaddafi? Is it not essential that no power should sell to such people vessels of that type, which could be extremely dangerous to the peace of the world?

The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points. Any accident of that kind, whoever is the owner of the ship in question, must cause us all the gravest concern. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall discuss the matter with Mr. Cheney when I meet him.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the United States Defence Secretary the United States commitment to and support of NATO?

In a general review of NATO's affairs with Mr. Cheney, I expect to cover these matters generally. I am sure that Mr. Cheney will be able to confirm that the new Administration—like, indeed, all previous Administrations—are firm believers in the effectiveness of NATO as an organisation that is entirely defensive and aims to reduce armaments from a position of strength.

Does the Secretary of State recall telling the House last July that no decisions had been made on NATO force modernisation? Why is it, then, that six weeks previously the United States started work on its new design facilities at RAF Upper Heyford to take new Fills? Will the Secretary of State discuss with the United States Defence Secretary why he is misleading the House?

The hon. Gentleman is not correct. No decisions have been taken on the modernisation of any NATO facilities of that kind. Any alternations or improvements that the United States wishes to make to its bases in this country will first have to receive the British Government's permission. Therefore, I deny both the hon. Gentleman's points.

When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Cheney and the other Defence Ministers, will he refer them to the speech made by Mr. Tindemans, the Belgian Foreign Minister, at the joint NATO meeting organised by ambassador Abshire, at which a number of hon. Members were present when Mr. Tindemans made it absolutely clear that the Belgian Government would want to support the modernisation of all weapons, nuclear and otherwise, within the NATO armoury?.

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House about that. The Belgian Government, like all the other members of the Western European Union, have subscribed to the platform of the Western European Union, which clearly commits the whole Alliance to a strategy based on nuclear deterrence.

Will the Secretary of State reflect on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) about the construction changes which are to take place at Upper Heyford? Will he look at the military construction appropriations report for 1990 which was presented to the House of Representatives of the United States, because it contains references to major constructions at Upper Heyford as a consequence of a decision to deploy additional aircraft to that site? Will he consider that question and put his reply on record in the Library or write to me or my hon. Friend and correct us, because we seem to be going wrong? It appears that the United States Congress is spending money on something which the Secretary of State seems to know nothing about.

Of course I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said and write to him, but I stress that the question is whether works are taking place as a result of NATO decisions on modernisation. There have been no such decisions; therefore, that is a clear answer to a clear question.

On a different aspect of possible co-operation, will my right hon. Friend find out in his discussions whether there is room for initiatives by Britain and the United States in offering military assistance to countries in south America which have to fight the war against the drug barons, to help them restore law and order to their own countries?

I note what my hon. Friend says. It is not our policy to detach any forces for operations in south America, but we would always be prepared to discuss with our allies any way we could help in the battle against drugs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what subjects he intends to discuss.

I expect to see Dr. Woerner at next week's meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group in Brussels. We shall discuss a range of subjects of mutual interest.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his informative reply. Will he be discussing the SRAM-T missile and whether the Government intend to fit it to NATO aircraft and ultimately to the European fighter aircraft? Is he aware that General Ronald Yates in evidence to a congressional sub-committee indicated that the missile was designed to restore capability lost by the INF treaty? Do the Government accept that restoration is necessary and will Britain play its part in that? Does he consider it justified, given the credit that the Government have tried to take for being party to the INF treaty?

I do not expect to discuss that issue with Dr. Woerner when I meet him next week, but I should make it absolutely clear once again that the INF treaty applies to ground-based intermediate-range missiles. We fully support that treaty which adopted NATO's proposals. There is no question of our wishing to go back on that treaty in any respect, but we have to maintain for our future defence a range of options that we could use if we were threatened with an attack which we could contain by no other means, and in that we are supported by the entire NATO Alliance.

As the proportion of Soviet GDP spent on defence has increased in recent years, does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO's defence policy must be predicated on what the Soviets do and not what they say?.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We must look quite realistically at the capabilities of the countries concerned, and we must equip ourselves to defend ourselves in all foreseeable circumstances. Expressions of increase or decrease on the Soviet defence budget are not worth very much until we know the level of that budget.

When the Secretary of State meets the Secretary General of NATO will he discuss the targeting policy for nuclear weapons for the duration of the Queen's visit to Moscow? Does he agree that there would be a certain irony in extending the hand of friendship on one side and, on the other side, threatening the use, implied or real, of nuclear weapons?

I do not think there is any likelihood of my discussing with Dr. Woerner any aspects of nuclear targeting during the Queen's visit to Moscow.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from Scotland on defence policy since 11 March; and if he will make a statement.

I have received no representations from Scotland specifically on defence policy, although I do, of course, receive a large volume of correspondence on various defence issues from all parts of the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that on that day, at the Labour party conference in Scotland, pronouncements were made advocating unilateralism?

Yes, I did observe that at a Labour party conference in Perth on that date—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It was Inverness."]—resolutions were passed urging that the review of policy—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the answer.

At that conference, resolutions were passed urging that following the review of policy that has taken place in the party, it adhere to unilateralism in all its features. It occurred to me to wonder whether the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) supported that, or agreed with it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings today.

Will the Prime Minister tell my 79-year-old, blind constituent, Mr. William Bradley, whether she thinks that it is fair that on 1 April 1988 his income was £52·55, that on 1 April 1989 it was £52·55, and that on 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1991 it will be £52·55? if she thinks that that is fair, would she care to justify it?

The hon. Member is taking a particular case which, I assume from what he says, was the subject of transitional protection, so that when the whole system was simplified and improved, and a lot more money was spent on it, people were protected from having a reduction in their cash. The hon. Gentleman takes a particular case in which there will be no real increase. May I, therefore, take credit for the fact that 98 per cent. of all pensioners will receive a cash increase with the coming uprating?

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to comment on the National Health Service White Paper proposals on doctors' budgets? Will she confirm that the proposals are entirely voluntary, helpful guidelines to be available to those who want them, rather than cash limits imposed on those who do not?

Yes, whether or not a doctor wishes to hold his own budget, provided that he is within the eligible group, is a decision for him to take. The fact that some doctors do not wish to do it should not deny others the right to do it if they want. I noticed in a recent article in the New Statesman and Society a report of one doctor from the Royal College of General Practitioners saying:

"Why should general practitioners resign over a plan which embodies so much of what the Royal College has been working for over the years?"

Does the Prime Minister think that all senior civil servants who make Government leaks should be prosecuted?

Prosecution is not a matter for me, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

From that answer by the Head of Government may I take it that she has decided to give a public interest defence to Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham?

No. I have nothing further to add —[Interruption.]—nothing further to add to the many answers given in statements, speeches and replies to questions. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing real to complain about.

During her busy day will my right hon. Friend find time to join me in congratulating my distinguished constituent, Nick Faldo, on his outstanding achievement on winning the American Masters? That, together with the equally important result achieved by Sandy Lyle last year, has illustrated that this country leads the world in golf.

I gladly congratulate Nick Faldo on this year's result. It was a very exciting tournament and a very exciting play-off. It was one of the best things that we have seen on television for a long time.

Given that the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union wants to renegotiate the terms and conditions under which the abolition of the dock labour scheme could go ahead, will the Prime Minister confirm that she would be ready—if such negotiations produced changes in the terms and given that the mineworkers' redundancy terms are much more generous —to amend the legislation as it goes through the House?

No. We believe that the restrictive practices contained in the present dock labour scheme are highly damaging to the prosperity of ports and highly damaging of the prospects of this country in 1992. There is only one thing to do and that is to abolish the scheme; then those ports that suffer under it at present will have the chance to become as prosperous as those ports that do not belong to it. The redundancy terms, at up to £35,000 for redundant dockers, are generous.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern among family practitioners about some of the proposals regarding the new way in which they would work under their contracts? Will she listen to their representations and recognise that for family practitioners the key dimension in the end is care for the sick?

Obviously the changes in the National Health Service White Paper and in the accompanying detailed documents are meant to improve the service to the patient. I notice again from an article in the New Statesman and Society that it says:

"The white paper is neither anti-socialist nor anti-NHS …the gain for patients will be immeasurable".

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether it was she who gave permission to MI5 and mercenaries to bug telephones, private and public, in Scotland, to bug meetings of Labour politicians and to bug their telephones in Liverpool, to infiltrate and bug meetings of opponents to nuclear power in other parts of the country and to tap the telephones of foreign politicians? If she did not do it, who gave permission? What is her link with David Coughlan and when can we expect criminal proceedings to commence against those people engaged in illegal activities?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to look up the legislation passed in this House which governs telephone interception. That legislation is followed meticulously and an annual report is made upon it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Good Friday seven of my Conservative councillors in Lambeth found their houses daubed with death threats? On Sunday last three of those seven received threats by telephone to kill them and to burn down their, expletive deleted, houses. Will she condemn such outrageous extremist political action and urge the police to increase surveillance and activity so as to apprehend those wretches as soon as they can?

The events which my hon. Friend describes are utterly disgraceful and totally contrary to democracy. I shall, of course, do as my hon. Friend says, and I hope that anyone who has information will not hesitate to give it to the police to see that such behaviour is stopped and, if need be, the people who perpetrated it are brought before the courts.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

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

Would the Prime Minister be prepared to consider the proposal made by Nobel prize winner Professor Abdus Salam at the Edinburgh science festival on Saturday that an international science centre should be established in Caithness drawing on the resources of that community to provide facilities for advanced scientists coming from the Third world to developed countries?.

I saw a proposal for an international science centre in Edinburgh. I did not see one for Caithness. For a feasibility study to be conducted into any proposal for an international science centre—I think that such a proposal has been put forward by Edinburgh district council —an application for money should be made to the Scottish Development Agency for its consideration. No such formal request has yet been made to that agency. The hon. Gentleman—or anybody from Edinburgh—should first go to the SDA.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House welcomes the progress that was made in Anglo-Soviet relations last week, not least those of us who were fortunate enough to be among the last Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the Soviet Union? But does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Gorbachev's comments about modernising NATO's short-range nuclear weapons were somewhat cynical having regard to what the Soviet Union has been doing with its short-range nuclear weapons in the last five years? Does she agree that the concession on uranium and plutonium could better be put into context?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We estimate that about 95 per cent. of Soviet short-range nuclear missile systems in the forward area have been modernised or replaced in the last five years and that some 200 SS21 missiles have been introduced since 1981. By contrast, NATO's Lance missile was introduced in 1972 and therefore needs modernisation. As for uranium and plutonium, as I have said, the Soviet Union has very substantial stockpiles and of course weapons grade uranium and plutonium do not deteriorate. The closure of three plutonium production reactors would leave four others still in operation.

Will the Prime Minister say why, following a most peaceful period in the docks industry, with ports such as Liverpool being in profit, she should cause a political strike? Is it because we have a bloody-minded Minister, a bloody-minded Cabinet and a bloody-minded Prime Minister who are prepared to take political action to achieve an industrial end?

No. The Minister, Ministers, the Government and the Prime Minister are concerned that all our docks should be working at maximum efficiency and prosperity and that those who are in the hinterlands to docks should have the chance of attracting inward investment, just as have those who are in the hinterlands to non-scheme docks. It will be much better and we should be able, when all the ports are working well and economically, to attract a lot of business from the European docklands to this country. Many fishermen who are having difficulty getting their fish landed will welcome our decision.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend soon find time to introduce some major improvements to the highly unsatisfactory methods by which the House continues to scrutinise EEC legislation? Does she agree that it is wrong that an important EC directive such as the one on broadcasting which will be ratified next week, could not be debated in the House? However, perhaps because of lack of scrutiny, that directive has been supported by Home Office Ministers who agreed even to a statutory right of reply being introduced for the European media. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government will now support the same principle by giving a fair wind to the private Member's Right of Reply Bill when it comes back to the House on Friday?

I shall attempt to answer the multiple parts of my hon. Friend's question. It is important to have the best possible scrutiny of draft directives before they are debated in the House, especially with the number of them now coming forward, the effect that they will have on our lives and the tendency of the Commission to put far too much detail in them. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Lord President has put some suggestions to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee for improving the scrutiny that should take place. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the broadcasting directive. He asked about the private Member's Right of Reply Bill. Of course that is a matter for private Members. Whatever view is taken, it indicates that there is great concern about some of the things that we see in the press today. We may not have the right answer, but we cannot ignore the concern.