To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aircraft have been ordered by his Department for the Royal Air Force since 1979.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate before we answer questions, to ask the House to join us in expressing sadness at the deaths of two naval airmen in an aircraft accident yesterday at Portland and in extending to their families our deepest sympathy.

As the first hon. Member to ask a question, may I strongly support my hon. Friend's first sentences. Obviously, flying the new aircraft, the orders for which we welcome, requires very rigorous training. Will my hon. Friend ensure that those pilots whose training involves low flights, which are particularly pronounced in my constituency, notably in Exmoor and west Somerset, are fully aware of the rules and regulations regarding low flying? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues immediately look into any suggestion that the rules and regulations have been departed from?

Yes. I can assure my hon. Friend that any incidents of low flying which are brought to our attention in which people did not abide by the rules are rigorously investigated and everything is done to ensure that low flying is properly regulated.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Air Force now has the best modern equipment of any time to meet the envisaged problems and that the aircraft which the Government have ordered do just that? Does he further agree that our aircrew are the most professional and highly trained in the western world? But there is no point in those two achievements if the aircraft —particularly strike aircraft—do not have modern stand-off capabilities otherwise they become very risky against sophisticated modern Soviet defences. Therefore it is essential that we have modern stand-off capabilities and we must upgrade those weapons systems.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is so important that our plans to replace the WE177 free-fall bomb with a tactical air-to-surface missile are so vital.

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I associate the Opposition with the sentiments expressed by the Minister to the families of those killed in yesterday's tragic accident. In view of his answer, which could be quite misleading, will the Minister say how many of the new aircraft have been put into storage because of inadequate radar, how many have been brought in simply as replacements after flying accidents, and how many have been put into full operational service with the RAF?

There are a number of aircraft which have been put into storage at the moment. That is because of the most economical form of production run. There were some aircraft in which the radars were not up to scratch, but now the radars are improving rather faster than the aircraft so many of the aircraft are being brought into service. There was a small problem but it has been overcome.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy toward the deployment of members of the Ministry of Defence police on land outside his Department's responsibility.

The deployment of members of the Ministry of Defence police is an operational matter for the chief constable, in accordance with the provisions of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.

Does the Minister recall that his hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in Standing Committee on 12 February 1987 that Ministry of Defence police would be used only where defence interests were involved? If that is so, why were they used at Stonehenge? Will the Minister guarantee that the Ministry of Defence police will not be used against workers on strike, or is he in favour of secondary policing?

Neither the hon. Gentleman nor myself were members of the Committee, although the record of its proceedings is in Hansard. If the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Committee, he might have been more familiar with section 2 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. 1 draw his attention especially to subsection 2(2)(d), which makes clear the power of the Ministry of Defence police to operate outside Ministry of Defence land, including in support of a Home Office constabulary.

My hon. Friend will be aware of my scepticism at the passage of that Act, in that it created for the first time a national police force under the direct control of a Minister of the Crown. However, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong in what he says. Will my hon. Friend accept that it is invaluable that the Ministry of Defence police help the civil police in disturbances that may arise, and in the protection of Stonehenge in my constituency? The delicate balance between the maintenance of the Queen's peace and the upholding of the law is enhanced considerably by the devotion, dedication and professionalism of the Ministry of Defence police.

I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about the loyal and dedicated service given by the Ministry of Defence police. The chief constable of Wiltshire was grateful for the assistance rendered a year ago by the Ministry of Defence police in helping his force to maintain law and order and in protecting an important monument, in addition to the wellbeing of my hon. Friend's constituents.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans or proposals he has for returning Foulness island and Maplin sands to civilian use.

None, Sir. The use of Foulness island and Maplin sands is essential to the operation of the proof and experimental establishment at Shoeburyness. It makes a vital, impartial and cost-effective contribution to ensuring the safety and effectiveness of our weapons systems.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are rumours in my constituency that a consortium is seeking to build a major international airport on Maplin sands? Will he confirm that he is not negotiating with that consortium, or any other, and that he has no intention or plans to do so at present?

I am aware of the rumours circulating in my hon. Friend's constituency. Matters of airport policy are for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the worst possible accident of a nuclear submarine in or near a British port for which his Department has emergency plans; and if he will make a statement.

The nuclear accident plans of the Ministry of Defence are prepared in line with the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The reference accident, on which the plans are based, envisages the release of some radioactive fission products into the atmosphere. In accordance with the ICRP recommendations, the plans are designed to be flexible enough to apply in worse accidents. In addition to that, the Royal Navy regularly exercises some of these extremely improbable accidents. The plans also consider the possibility that the submarine could sink.

Yes, but will the Minister confirm that the worst possible accident that could occur to a nuclear submarine in port would be a primary containment failure, which would put many civilian lives at risk? Will he also confirm that local authority emergency planning officers have never been briefed about that probability and would have, therefore, no idea how to react if such an accident occurred?

It is probable in those circumstances that the submarine would burn and then sink. The radioactivity would be contained if the submarine sank, as water is the best substance for containing it.

Is not the worst possible scenario an attack when we had a Government who were not prepared to press the firing button?

Yes, that is right. There is no point in having a nuclear deterrent unless one is prepared to use it. I am sure that the Soviet Union will have taken into account the fact that the Opposition are saying that they are not prepared to use it.

Is the Minister aware that on Sunday 7 May 1989 a vehicle allegedly transporting radioactive materials was involved in an accident at Cleland in my constituency? Can he confirm that there was radioactive material on board that vehicle? If so, will he confirm whether the vehicle bore the appropriate markings? Will he give a categorical assurance that the lives and personal safety of my constituents were not endangered? Will he now accept the unsuitability of that particular road between the two motorways for vehicles carrying hazardous substances and order a full investigation into why it was there in the first place?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his supplementary question. understand that, on a journey from Derby to the naval dockyard at Rosyth on Sunday, a contractors' lorry carrying a portable cabin belonging to Rolls-Royce and associates was involved in a minor accident on the road to Cleland, Lanarkshire. The cabin was one used in the non-destructive examination of plant and equipment. Police took precautions on learning that, although there were no radioactive sources within the cabin, it carried an aluminium container and a roll of plythene properly marked with warning tapes, which both held items which were mildly contaminated with radioactivity through having been used in test procedures. Anyone would have been able to pick up and handle the items without coming to any harm. Once the lorry's load had been re-adjusted the lorry continued on its journey to Rosyth.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the most recent proposals for new nuclear artillery shells.

SACEUR's latest nuclear weapons requirement study addresses the full spectrum of NATO's nuclear requirements, including the need to continue with the modernisation of NATO's nuclear artillery shells.

The Secretary of State will know that Chancellor Kohl has called for equal ceilings for nuclear artillery shells at drastically reduced levels. Does not that conflict with the policy of the United States Government to modernise and to develop new nuclear shells that are capable of being turned into neutron bombs? Will the Secretary of State argue that the new shells should not be deployed in Europe?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with SACEUR's nuclear weapons requirement study. The proposals in it include a very large net reduction in the number of nuclear warheads. That compares with the fact that NATO has reduced its nuclear warheads by no less than 2,400 in recent years, whereas the Soviet Union has made practically no reduction. It is well open to the Soviet Union to make reductions if it so wishes.

Can my right hon. Friend predict what the effect would be on his Department's ability to defend the country, on the morale of the armed forces and on the nation's security, if the Labour party's policies on defence were implemented?

That is extremely difficult to predict, but it is certainly true that any policy that tried to throw over the policy of nuclear deterrence, which is supported by all countries in NATO, would be quite disastrous for the safety and security of this country.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) the Secretary of State mentioned 2.400 warheads. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I mentioned the subject to the Prime Minister at Question Time, she dismissed it as nothing at all—just a small reduction by NATO? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister and tell her which story they should go forward with?

I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The Prime Minister has often referred to those figures, as have I. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the policy of nuclear deterrence is supported by all members of NATO without exception —including all those with Socialist Governments. The Labour party is in danger of getting out of step with all of them.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the balance of nuclear-capable artillery between Soviet and NATO forces?

I shall be glad to remind the House of the modernisation that has been taking place. For instance, the Soviet Union has modernised 95 per cent.—almost all —its short-range nuclear missile systems in the past five years. It has replaced Frog missiles with the more capable SS21s and it is deploying the AS16 missile, which is a tactical air-to-surface missile. Labour Members who are supposed to be considering these matters should be a bit realistic about what is going on in the world.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review his policy on compensation for veterans of British nuclear tests.

The policy of my Department is to pay appropriate compensation wherever the Crown's legal liability is established. Since there is no firm evidence to show that the health of British test veterans was affected by exposure to radiation during the United Kingdom's nuclear test programme, the Government remain of the view that the Crown cannot be held legally liable for any ill-health suffered by those who participated. We do, of course, have the greatest sympathy with those who suffer illness and who believe, quite sincerely, that this is due to their participation in the nuclear test programme. However, in the circumstances, we see no reason to change our policy on the question of compensation.

As the Australian Government are paying compensation to certain veterans as a result of their involvement in a nuclear test, and the United States Government are paying compensation for 13 forms of cancer contracted by personnel involved in nuclear tests, is it not especially mean and insensitive for the British Government not to consider compensation for British service personnel who have been involved in the same tests? Will the Government consider the appointment of an ombudsman independently to analyse those compensation claims?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have studied the National Radiological Protection Board, report, which was independent and authoritative. I am sure that he will have due regard to its findings.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, however generous the compensation, none would be sufficient to compensate for the loss of life and freedom that would be engendered by this country adopting the foolish and ill-considered policies of the Opposition? [Interruption.]

Order. I remind the House that the same rules apply here as in Prime Minister's questions. Questions must relate to Government responsibility.

My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that over the years members of our armed forces have been prepared to give very loyal service and to suffer injury and death to protect their country. We have drawn attention—[Interruption.]

Order.

I am seeking to reply to the point raised by my hon. Friend. I re-emphasise that it has always been the policy of my Department to give compensation where liability has been established. We also have a system of pensions for those who have been injured or for the dependants of those who have lost their lives in service to their country.

That was a most disappointing and insensitive series of replies. It is unacceptable that the Minister is not offering compensation to nuclear test veterans. Will he, however, assure the House that he will consider giving compensation to those other nuclear veterans, the submariners, who have been discovered to have contracted cancer because of their service in nuclear submarines? Today the Minister's replies are nothing less than complacent, dilatory and lacking in care. It is about time that the Minister gave the House a guarantee that the Government will do something for those people who have suffered because of nuclear tests or their service in nuclear submarines.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, speaking as he does from the Front Bench, will have regard to the importance of being fair to all people involved and not just to those who are suffering from cancer, which they believe may have been caused by their participation in nuclear tests. As cause or connection was not established by the NRPB study, we have a responsibility to be fair to everybody—those who are suffering from cancers, who were not involved in nuclear tests, and those who were.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from his Belgian counterpart about Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

In recent weeks my Belgian colleague and I have discussed the question of modernising NATO's short-range nuclear weapons both bilaterally and at a meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group. The NPG communiqué, to which we both subscribed, reflects a large measure of agreement on essentials.

Is it not a fact that the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Wilfried Martens, has been pressing the Government and other NATO countries for earnest East-West discussions about reductions in nuclear short-range forces? Why are the Government continuing the arms race philosophy, being so hard-line and causing such disagreement nowadays in NATO, such that the British Government seem to be the only Government who want to perpetuate the arms race?

The hon. Gentleman is not fair to the Belgian Government because all along the Belgian Government have supported the main NATO strategy of nuclear deterrence and have strongly said that they do not favour a third zero of the shorter-range nuclear forces. They agree that weapons systems must be kept up to date. We must be fair to the Belgian Government.

Will my right hon. Friend take time during his next discussions with the Belgian Defence Minister to assure him that this Government will stand firmly behind the NATO strategy of nuclear deterrence, will ensure that proper conventional forces are supplied into the future for NATO's deployment and will ensure that we shall never let our allies down by backing out of NATO or even discussing such a possibility?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend and I re-affirm definitely that we in this Government entirely support the prevention of war by nuclear deterrence. In that we are supported absolutely unanimously by all our NATO allies of all political persuasions. All hon. Members, especially those in the Labour party, should reflect on that carefully at this time.

Does the right hon. Gentleman support President Bush in his new policy of re-integration towards the Soviet Union? Does he accept that that signifies that United States is moving towards the Kohl-Genscher view on the modernisation of nuclear weapons? Will he take steps to advise the Prime Minister to moderate her views before President Bush moderates them for her?

I fully support what the United States has been saying on these subjects in recent weeks under its new Administration. Its words are absolutely in line with those of myself and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Would my right hon. Friend retain any credibility with his Belgian counterpart if he supported the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons on the basis that he doubted whether they were any use at all, that he would never use them anyway, and that he would phase them out by the year 2000? Would not even the Belgians think that my right hon. Friend was guilty of fudge and mudge?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot think of anyone in any of the other member states of NATO who would agree that the possession of a deterrent that one says that one would never use is of any use whatever.

Will the Secretary of State say which members of NATO support the Government's position on modernisation because not even the United States is prepared to go along with that and is itself seeking a compromise with the Federal Republic of Germany?

In answering that, I cannot do better than to quote from the NATO communique, to which all members of the Alliance subscribe—

Not completely.

Including my Belgian colleague. The words that he subscribed to are:

"For the foreseeable future our strategy of deterrence will continue to require both conventional and nuclear forces. At this meeting we again expressed our determination to ensure that NATO possesses diversified, survivable and operationally flexible nuclear forces across the entire spectrum. These forces must be kept up-to-date where necessary."

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to whether the Soviet Air Force has reduced its offensive capability.

We have no evidece to indicate that the Soviet air force has reduced its offensive capability; indeed there are signs that this capability has continued to grow. My hon. Friend will find this aspect covered more fully in the 1989 defence White Paper.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it shows the need constantly to update our own Air Force equipment and to be prepared, if necessary, to use that equipment, which the Labour party's policy does not recognise? That is the only way to ensure that we can negotiate arms reductions from a position of strength rather than weakness.

That is absolutely true. The Soviet Union is producing 600 new fighters every year and 40 to 45 heavy and medium bombers. Those are becoming increasingly better equipped and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Soviets have a good tactical air-to-surface missile which, I am quite convinced, is more sophisticated than our free-fall nuclear bomb.

Does my hon. Friend agree that his assessment of the offensive capability of the Soviet air force would be affected if President Gorbachev had given an undertaking never to make use of that offensive capability?

That is right. We are still awaiting such a pronouncement from President Gorbachev that he is not prepared to use armaments. His existence as president of the Soviet Union would be short-lived if he made such an announcement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the latest United States plans for burden sharing will affect United Kingdom defence costs and commitments.

The defence planning committee report published in December 1988, on the sharing of roles, risks and responsibilities within the Alliance acknowledges the United Kingdom's substantial and comprehensive commitment to the Alliance. However, it calls on us to continue efforts to achieve greater efficiency and value for money from the existing resources we commit to defence and to improve the real value of our defence budget. We fully accept this NATO challenge.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that one form of burden sharing that the Government will not go in for will be to accept in this country the American short-range modernised nuclear weapons which the west Germans had the good sense to refuse in their country?

The question of the follow-on to Lance being based in this country does not arise. We will, of course, review whether tactical air-to-surface missiles and dual-capable aircraft are based in this country.

While I accept the need to ensure that everyone carries a fair burden in NATO, will my hon. Friend remind our American allies that it is also important that burden sharing in the far east is encouraged? The Japanese, by their actions, have been forced severely to reduce their contribution in the years since the war. That has been a major contribution to the fact that the Japanese are able to take us on in the industrial world. Would it not be better to ensure that the Japanese also make a fair contribution?

I know that our friends in the United States are concerned about the contribution made by the Japanese to the defence effort in the far east, and that is certainly something which we are discussing with them.

Would it not be fairer if we reduced the level of our defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP to the average of our NATO allies? That would release some facilities that we could put into manufacturing industry, and so move towards the level of GDP percentage spending achieved by the Japanese Government, which is less than 1 per cent. We might then be able to emulate the success in manufacturing industry achieved worldwide by the Japanese.

I believe that the Japanese contribution to defence spending is in excess of 1 per cent. and, because its economy is so large, it is one of the biggest defence budgets in the world. We have a defence budget that meets our commitments and we should not reduce it below that level. We have made an enormous contribution to British industry and our defence exports are one of the finest parts of our overall export performance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the Secretary of Defence of the United States of America to discuss the case for improving upon existing levels of defence efforts among west European NATO partners.

I expect to meet the United States Secretary for Defence, along with other Alliance Defence Ministers, at the NATO defence planning committee in Brussels next month. We shall discuss a wide range of issues, including the sharing of roles, risks and responsibilities within the Alliance.

At that meeting, will my right hon. Friend draw attention to the fact that six members of NATO commit less than 3 per cent. of their GDP to defence spending, which puts increased pressure, particularly on Great Britain and America, to ensure that NATO's defences are steadfast and sufficient? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that no Government in NATO have refused to pledge themselves to a proper policy of deterrence and the use of such a policy when circumstances require it? Therefore, the present British Government must continue in power to prevent any party from replacing that policy.

I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. It is very important that in an Alliance of equal, free, democratic nations all should pull their weight in the common defence. We certainly want to make sure that we play our full part and that we encourage all our allies to do the same.

When my right hon. Friend meets the United States Secretary of Defence, will he express to him the gratitude felt by most people in this country for the fact that the United States maintains such a substantial commitment for the defence of Europe and that 100,000 of "their boys" are in Europe largely in our defence, as well as theirs?

I agree. The American contribution to NATO's common defence efforts is notable and welcome. It is worth adding that it was put in train by the American Government precisely because they understand that the defence of the United States of America starts in Europe. That is why they put their weight into it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what armoured vehicles have been ordered by his Department for the Army since 1979.

Since 1979, the Ministry of Defence has ordered seven regiments of Challenger 1 main battle tanks; 13 battalions of Warrior; 10 battalions of Saxon and a range of other type of armoured artillery, air defence and support vehicles.

Does not the excellent record that my hon. Friend has just outlined demonstrate both the quantity and the quality of the equipment with which we provide the armoured corps within the Army? Does it not also underline the strength and commitment of the Government to the deterrent effect of our conventional forces?

I agree entirely. Of course, it also highlights the importance of keeping weapons systems up to date, whether conventional or nuclear.

Not many moments ago a Minister agreed at the Dispatch Box with the use of Ministry of Defence police to support the civil police with problems. Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's majority at the last election, would he press the button to use the vehicles mentioned in the question against British people if he thought that was necessary?

I must confess that I am not readily able to determine my ministerial responsibility for my right hon. Friend's majority, but I shall do all I can to increase it next time.

The main question is about armoured vehicles.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as 50 per cent. of 1 BR corps is supplied by the Territorial Army there is a strong case for ensuring that the Territorial Army battalions designated to NATO have armoured personnel carriers at their disposal? Will he acknowledge that as these vehicles are manufactured so ably in Shropshire—and the engines even more so in Shrewsbury —I have no great personal interest to declare?

As my hon. Friend is well aware from his knowledge and experience, these new armoured personnel carriers are a great deal more capable and provide a great deal more protection than the vehicles that they replace. As he also knows, the battalions of Saxon are largely going to equip units that did not have armoured protection before, so, again, we are considerably increasing our capability.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent NATO nuclear planning group meeting.

At the nuclear planning group meeting on 19 and 20 April, Ministers reaffirmed their determination to ensure that NATO has effective and up-to-date nuclear forces across the full spectrum of ranges, and expressed their continued support for national efforts to meet modernisation requirements stemming from Montebello. Ministers also noted SACEUR's conclusions about the link between modernisation and stockpile reductions and about the contribution to deterrence of new longer-range, ground-launched and air-delivered weapons. A copy of the communiqué issued at the end of the meeting, and agreed by all Ministers, has been placed in the Library of the House.

Is it not a fact that a question mark hangs over the decision taken by the nuclear planning group? Is it not also a fact that the Prime Minister, by delaying the modernisation of short-range missiles, is reluctant to accept that decision? Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that there is to be an increase in the number of FE111 s and FE15s?

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the outcome of the meeting. The outcome, with the unanimous agreement of every nation present, was to reaffirm the nuclear defensive strategy of NATO, to reaffirm the need to keep weapons up to date and to reaffirm the unanimous view of all that a third zero would not be in the interests of the west. It cannot be said too often that we have had secure peace and freedom from war for so many years because of the existence of nuclear deterrence, which we would abandon at our peril.

What does my right hon. Friend think would have been the reaction of his colleagues at that NATO meeting had he told them that it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to use the nuclear deterrent, even if necessary?

I am afraid that if I had made such a statement, nobody present from any Administration of any party would have agreed with me. Britain would have been in a minority of one, and I hope never to see Britain in a minority of one at NATO.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question that I put to him on 7 March, which the Minister of State also refused to answer on 11 April and about which I wrote to the Department a month ago and to which I have not received a reply? Do the Government take seriously the threat of a tactical nuclear attack on NATO's fixed assets in West Germany?

I am not sure what lies behind the question—[Hons. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The Government certainly do take seriously the large superiority in weapons lined up against us in western Europe—weapons of all kinds; nuclear, conventional and chemical—and it is to make all those unusable that the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked so effectively for so long.

How would my right hon. Friend set about planning into such a meeting a nuclear deterrent which he had committed himself not to use? Would it not be something of a white elephant? Or, to put it another way, would it not be like hiring an expensive guard dog which had lost its bark, which he was having put down and which he intended to stuff?

I cannot better my hon. Friend's simile. To arm oneself with a deterrent which one then said one would in no circumstances use would be about as effective as a feather duster.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement upon his recent discussions with his West German counterpart.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement upon his recent discussions with his West German counterpart.

I had discussions with Dr. Scholz on matters of mutual interest at the Western European Union and the nuclear planning group meetings last month. I have not yet had an opportunity to meet Dr. Stoltenberg who replaced Dr. Scholz as Federal Minister of Defence on 21 April.

Will the Secretary of State try to realise that Germans will be killed in their thousands if weapons at present based on their soil are ever used, so that when they take part in East-West relations they welcome the opportunity to negotiate with the Soviet Union cuts in conventional and short-term nuclear forces to achieve levels below present NATO levels?

I well understand the sensitivities of people living in Germany to such matters, but it is a sad fact of geography that if any war were to break out it would he the British, Americans and Germans in the central front area who would be in danger. Nuclear deterrence exists to prevent war. It has been successful and only an irresponsible Government would abandon it.

The Secretary of State has persistently reminded the Opposition this afternoon that they should live in the real world. Is not the real world the fact that the West Germans are responding to public opinion in West Germany which is opposed to the modernisation of nuclear weapons? Is it not a fact that 71 per cent. of people in Britain are also opposed to the modernisation of nuclear weapons, and 61 per cent. of those are Tory voters? Why do not this internationally isolated Government live in the real world and follow what real people are feeling in the real world?

I had hoped that I would be able to welcome the hon. Lady to the real world, but unfortunately I cannot, because the views that she has expressed are out of step with every Government of NATO, without exception, including the German Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also present at Victoria station to mark the arrival of President Babangida. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a state banquet in honour of President Babangida.

Will the right hon. Lady consider establishing a statutory committee to oversee the standards of premium telephone services in recognition of the fact that the voluntary committee, set up and funded by British Telecom, has fallen into disrepute?

No, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that the voluntary committee has fallen into disrepute. The Director General of Telecommunications, who has invited comments by the end of April on the proposed code of practice and amendments to the licences, is going precisely the right way.

Will my right hon. Friend consider making available the health inspectors from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to examine a product which is to be put on the market this afternoon—a gigantic nuclear fudge?

My right hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. I expect that it will turn out to be unilateralism in a different wrapping.

How could the Secretary of State for Health say last Saturday that the Health Service is at the limit of its capacity to absorb money when the health authorities report today that hospitals are underfunded by £490 million this year?

If the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else suggests that hospitals are underfunded at their present rate, they must have been in dire circumstances when they had only one third of that amount from Labour.

Will the Prime Minister simply tell us whom she thinks is telling the truth? Is it the Secretary of State, who says that the Health Service cannot take any more money because it cannot absorb it, or the health authorities, who say that the hospitals are £490 million short? May we have a straight answer to a straight question?

will give the right hon. Gentleman a straight answer. Under him, the health authorities had only one third of what they are getting now, and that is what he cannot take. They are now getting three times as much as they had under Labour and they are doing far better than ever.

Has my right hon. Friend seen, or will she see, a splendid half-hour programme, independently produced for the BBC last week, called "Thatcher's Children"? Apart from the fact that it was made almost entirely in my constituency of Nottingham, South, which is part of what she has rightly called the queen of the midlands, does she agree that the young people interviewed showed enterprise and willingness to meet an enterprise culture, which bodes well for the future? Does she also agree that it is quite wrong to equate enterprise with greed and selfishness?

The number of young people who are becoming self-employed, starting up their own businesses an taking advantage of all the opportunities is extremely encouraging. They are not only responsible for their own future but are looking after jobs for others and should be encouraged in every way.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that at the seminar at Downing Street energy conservation was recommended by the scientists as being the single thing which could deal with the problems relating to the greenhouse effect? Therefore, will she instruct her Minister of State, Department of Energy, on attending the European meeting on energy conservation this Thursday, to block the advice of civil servants which will effectively prevent a Community action programme for electricity conservation being adopted in this country—a programme already agreed by all other European countries?

There was not one particular proposal put forward at the seminar, as I think I explained in answer to a question last time I replied from this Box. One of the proposals was for more nuclear energy, because it does not put up carbon dioxide, and one of the most damaging elements in the greenhouse effect is the burning of fossil fuels. Another was that every effort should be made to retain tropical rain forests and to include that effort in one's overseas aid programme. The third thing was energy efficiency, and we pointed out that this country is using less energy now, at a far higher rate of production than we had in 1973. I hope that the hon. Lady will have read the speech made yesterday by our ambassador in New York asking for a kind of umbrella convention on greenhouse effect gases of the same kind as we have on ozone layer gases.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that to grant passports to 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese would be a breach of the Sino-British agreement which she signed?

We could do not do that unless the British Nationality Act 1981 were revised and that would have to go through the House. There are many different opinions about the practical effect with regard to the granting of such passports, but it is not possible under the present law.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

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

Can the Prime Minister confirm that now that she is spending another £1·75 million of our money to mislead people on the poll tax it means that her Government are spending six times as much on publicity and propaganda as any previous Government? Is it not perfectly clear that anything that is so expensive to sell must be a pretty shabby product?

If the hon. Member takes that view he must be pretty ashamed of some of the poll tax documents put out by his local authority. In regard to Government policy, the Government have a clear duty to ensure that everyone knows what his or her main rights and duties are. We are reaching 21 million households at a cost of under £1 million, which is very good value for money. Very soon, on 22 May, most councils will start registering people for the community charge and it is vital, therefore, that people have accurate information for the registration process.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If Opposition Members are saying "Hear, hear", they must agree that that accurate information should go to every household.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fines imposed by courts for river and harbour pollution are ridiculously low? Will she encourage the Magistrates Association to remind its members that they should use the full penalties available to them to discourage that form of environmental pollution?

I greatly sympathise with my hon. Friend's remarks. The average fine imposed by magistrates courts in 1987 was £450, compared with the maximum penalty available of a £2,000 fine and up to three months' imprisonment. That issue has been drawn to the attention of the Magistrates Association several times, most recently by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we all hope for a positive response.

Mr. Ashdown.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. This takes a lot of time.

In view of the Prime Minister's recent comments, will she say what in her view is the role of the European Parliament?

The role of the European Parliament is laid down in the treaty as amended by the Single European Act, and I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to read it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most essential attributes of a political leader is the courage to stand fast to his or her convictions, even when that may temporarily be electorally unpopular? Does she further agree that any political leader prepared to compromise their most cherished political principles for the sake of short-term electoral popularity is unfit to lead their party and even more unfit to be Prime Minister of this country?

Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, we are conviction politicians, and we never put power before principles.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

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

The Prime Minister is known to have a very high regard for our ex-service men, so how does she account for her Government's absolutely disgraceful conduct towards British nuclear test veterans compared with that of the United States Government, who grant compensation for 13 forms of cancer as compared with compensation for only two forms of cancer recognised by Britain? The Americans do not demand absolute proof, but the Ministry of Defence is bitterly fighting our ex-service men every inch of the way through the courts and is refusing to pay them compensation. That is a disgraceful state of affairs under a Government whose Prime Minister professes to love and admire our ex-service men.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, cases were carefully looked at by a special inquiry of medical people, who did not find cause and effect. I say to the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest of respect that the cause and effect that he says has been proved has not been proved, and therefore compensation is not appropriate.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to consider what would be the effects on the environment if nuclear power were to be phased out over the next 10 years, as the Labour party proposes?

Yes. I think that that would be very damaging. As my hon. Friend is aware, during that time a number of Magnox nuclear power stations will need replacing. We hope that, subject to planning permission, there will be four new nuclear power stations by the end of this century, replacing the coal-fired or oil-fired power stations that would otherwise be needed, and which would add grievously to the greenhouse effect—which is something that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to happen.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the report in the Yorkshire Post today in which the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce criticised the Government for high interest rates, which have had a significant effect on small industries and businesses? When will the Prime Minister do something to lift the strain from small business people and people paying high mortgage rates? When will she take action to reduce interest rates?

We do not like to keep interest rates high any longer than we have to. [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like to keep interest rates higher than need be, but the most damaging thing would he for inflation to go up to the kind of heights it reached under Labour. That is why interest rates must remain high for the time being.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of British Telecom has resulted in much shorter waiting lists for telephones, lower charges for calls and a much wider ownership of telephones among pensioners because of the reduction in standing charges? Will she not further agree that for any political party to talk about renationalisation is thoroughly irresponsible?

Yes, the privatisation of British Telecom has, indeed, led to a better service, a substantially increased number of telephones among pensioners and a very considerable reduction of the waiting lists. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is thoroughly arrogant of politicians with little experience of industry to say that they can run industry better than it can run itself.