To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends altering the Trident programme.

No. The planned in-service date for Trident remains the mid- 1990s, as originally announced in 1982.

Has my right hon. Friend been able to identify anything so far in the changes sweeping Europe that would justify a reduction in the current Trident programme? In particular, has he been able to identify anything that would in any way justify this country abandoning the fourth Trident ship?

Although we welcome and shall play our full part in the conventional force reduction talks in Vienna, in support of the NATO position, and although we want substantial reductions in nuclear weapons, there can be no question of abandoning our deterrent before we are certain that there is no threat to this country.

How does the Secretary of State justify the fourfold increase in warheads which the Trident system represents over the existing Polaris system? Polaris is an effective deterrent in present circumstances with its existing warheads. Why is it necessary to have a substantial escalation in firepower to the extent that the D5 system necessarily involves?

It is a sobering thought that even with the increase which I accept Trident represents over the existing Polaris system, it will still represent a smaller percentage in relation to the number of Soviet warheads and the threat posed by the Soviet Union than Polaris did at the time of its introduction. Although I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment that there is no need for it, it is our judgment that Trident—and the number of warheads proposed in Trident—is the minimum necessary to maintain a credible deterrent against the increasing sophistication of the Soviet defences.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reasons for our updating our nuclear capability are precisely the same as those that caused the former Labour Administration to update our nuclear capability? They did it behind the scenes, but we do it openly.

I hope that it would be common ground and manifestly obvious that if there is to be a nuclear deterrent, it must be a credible deterrent. It would be the most outrageous waste to have a deterrent that was not credible or competent for the job.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Trident project is still up to date and within budget? Will he also explain to the House what the ambassador in Washington was doing when he seemed to be lobbying the Senate and Congress to secure extra funding, if the story in last week's Jane's Defence Weekly is true?

I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. He can read the story in the congressional record as well, which may be even better than Jane's Defence Weekly. I have made representations, as has our ambassador in Washington, to ensure that the American authorities and Congress understand and appreciate the importance to us of the continuing Trident programme. We are confident that with the necessary funds, subject to internal matters in the United States and Congress, the programme will go forward satisfactorily.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to follow the correspondence on Trident in The Times which has been conducted between various members of the Opposition in the other place? Will he confirm, and once and for all scotch suggestions to the contrary, that the Trident navigational system is entirely independent and will not require any dependence on American satellites or guidance systems?

I am afraid that I missed the correspondence, but I can confirm the statement in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. There has been a suggestion, which was deployed in the defence debate, that somehow Trident will not be independent and will not be under British control. I confirm that it will be independent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about his Department's plans for the decommissioning of nuclear submarines.

We are actively considering the available options, and I refer the hon. Member to the evidence given by my Department to the Select Committee which was published in its seventh report.

Is it not time that Ministers made a decision? The only policy that the Government seem to have on the decommissioning of nuclear submarines is to leave them sitting round in port to corrode. Given that the Dreadnought has been hanging around for years and that other submarines are due to be decommissioned before the year 2000, is it not about time that Ministers came to the House with a clear, definitive statement of their intentions on the decommissioning of nuclear submarines?

It is important not to make a precipitate judgment. To moor and store submarines in this way is a perfectly safe option, and during that time the radiation in the power units degrades. The United States has been storing submarines in this way for more than 20 years.

Is it not time that the Government came to a conclusion on the matter, which I understand has been actively considered for some time? We will have 10 more nuclear submarines within the next few years. Why does not the Minister advise us of some of the important criteria on which he will base this decision? I suggest that monitoring should be carried out and that the Government should ensure that the submarines are recoverable, repairable and tested. The Government have been dilatory; it is about time that they got their finger out and did something about it.

It is important to get the solution right. There is no danger of these submarines corroding. Dreadnought will be docked briefly for an overhaul within the next six months to ensure that that does not happen. The radiation from the existing hulls is very slight. In accordance with the requirements suggested by the Select Committee, we have monitored the radiation and we are supplying details to Dunfermline council. This is a perfectly acceptable way of storing the vessels until a solution, which will undoubtedly embrace the factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, is arrived at.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what comparative figures he has for the accident rates for Tornado aircraft for each of the European countries which operate these aircraft.

It is not our policy to publish accident rates for particular aircraft types. The public release of aircraft accident statistics for other nations is a matter for the respective Governments.

Is it not true that the Tornado accident rate in Britain is twice that of the other European countries which operate the aircraft? Is it not about time that we reviewed our low-flying procedures—they are not followed by any other nation in the western world—to stop this unnecessary loss of life and huge loss of aircraft?

The hon. Gentleman's opening assertion is not true. The number of accidents is not relevant. What is relevant is the number of accidents in relation to the amount of flying activity. Taking that as the basis for comparison, if we exclude the early accidents that occurred as a result of technical defects which were part of the early experience of operating that aircraft—in which the United Kingdom was a leader—our accident rate since then has been broadly comparable with that in Germany and Italy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tornado has a lower accident rate than any other combat aircraft which has been brought into service in the Royal Air Force?

I confirm that Tornado has a very comparable record with other fast jet aircraft in operation with the RAF.

The Minister's statement is quite incredible. He knows very well that figures are available which show that 17 Tornado GR1 bombers have crashed, and that in the past three years in Britain 10 Tornado GR1 s have crashed while only four have crashed in the German air force. Earlier, the Government stated that early Tornado losses were due to teething problems. Our losses are much higher than for any other air force; are they due to faulty equipment or to pilot error?

Each accident is subject to an inquiry, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I am well aware of the article in The Independent on 8 June from which the hon. Gentleman draws this incorrect inference. I can repeat only that it is not a question of the number of accidents. The important point is the number of accidents that occur in relation to the amount of flying activity with that aircraft.

Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies in the north of England that the low-flying exercises from places such as RAF Leeming involving Tornado jets are absolutely essential to the future defence of Great Britain and must be carried out? Although they impose a small price in terms of inconvenience for local households, it would be totally irresponsible of the Government to abandon them.

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. The fast, low operation of modern jet fighter and bomber aircraft is the only possible way, in present circumstances, of surviving the electronic warfare environment that we would be likely to meet in a war.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the effects of demographic changes upon Her Majesty's Government's defence policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the effects of demographic changes upon Her Majesty's Government's defence policy.

Demographic changes pose a particular challenge which we are taking steps to address for the recruitment and retention of manpower, but they do not require changes in current defence policies and commitments.

Why do the Government have a negative attitude towards the conventional forces in Europe talks in Vienna when we could be discussing the reductions in troop levels? Does he agree that the Government's record in the planning of reductions in the 1990s has been pathetic and short sighted and that it will be very costly for the taxpayer?

The premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is wrong. We played a full part in the events that led to the conventional forces in Europe talks in Vienna and we shall continue to do so. We lack no vigour or enthusiasm for those developments. However, when it comes to defending our country against potential threat, we must maintain our forces at assessed levels. We are endeavouring to do that through a range of initiatives which were put under way long ago—not as recently as the hon. Gentleman first discovered the problem.

Does the Minister realise that inadequate living conditions are driving people out of the armed forces and that a quarter of armed forces accommodation is of the lowest grade, grade 4? What is the Minister doing to improve the quality of accommodation so that it meets demographic changes?

The hon. Gentleman has a point, and we recognise it. There is—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will be good enough to wait for the answer—[Interruption.]

The Minister thinks he is Sergeant Bilko.

Order. The Minister must have a chance to answer.

If I were Sergeant Bilko, I would call the hon. Gentleman to attention.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons why we lose members of the armed forces is that highly skilled personnel are asked to do such things as security duties and ship deep-cleaning? Does he agree that we should continue to ensure that those tasks are civilianised and that security is kept at a high level without having to use highly trained people?

Yes. There are many component parts in the well-being of members of Her Majesty's armed forces. My hon. Friend has pointed to another need, which is to avoid stretch and over-stretch and, wherever possible, to accommodate civilian manpower in operationally administrative roles so that serving men and women can be released to do their proper jobs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, even with the best will in the world and provided that it keeps its bargain, the Soviet Union will take six to eight years or even longer to reduce its conventional forces? Is he further aware that, in respect of NATO, we start from a much lower base, which also includes troops? In those circumstances, does he agree that there is a danger of a serious imbalance occurring unless we watch matters very carefully?

My hon. Friend observes with a rather more expert eye the scene in eastern Europe and beyond. It is quite clear that we shall have a continuing need for manpower and womanpower in the armed services, and we are doing all that we can to maintain assessed levels of need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on the British Army of the proposals tabled in Vienna for ceilings on troop numbers.

The current NATO proposals on manpower are limited to forces stationed by the United States and the Soviet Union in Europe.

I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be a little more enthusiastic about initiatives being taken at Vienna, especially as recent public opinion polls in the Federal Republic of Germany show that people are in favour of more troop reductions there. Surely it is part of the British Government's commitment to a safer and peaceful Europe to offer troop reductions in central Europe, as part of our contribution to demilitarising Europe.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I made clear our full support for the reduction talks in Vienna and our determination to play a full part in them as members of NATO. The proposals tabled by the Warsaw pact and by NATO involve items of equipment. The present proposals affect forces stationed outside the national territory of the United States and the Soviet Union. The most important thing for those who care about arms reductions and force reductions is that this first major undertaking is successfully completed with confidence and trust.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as our troop numbers are contained, they should have the latest, most modern equipment to take fullest advantage of resources? Is that policy not wholly inconsistent with the Labour party's commitment to massive cuts in conventional defence expenditure? What assurance can my right hon. Friend offer to our defence industries and to the many thousands of people who work in them that the Government at least are committed to the sound security of this country?

Consistency is not a word with which one should ever charge the Opposition. Although they have proposals for massive reductions in defence expenditure, they never lose opportunities to complain about the potential job losses that they suspect lie somewhere within our proposals, which are for considerably greater defence expenditure—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask hon. Members to settle down.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the NATO nuclear planning group has had concerning the possible deployment of additional F111 aircraft.

At the nuclear planning group meeting in April 1988, Ministers endorsed a proposed package of force restructuring and modernisation measures designed to enable the Alliance to sustain its strategy of flexible response in the post-INF era. The options included possible deployment to Europe of longer-range dual capable aircraft from the United States. However, no decisions have yet been taken.

I thank the Secretary of State for his usual unclear answer. Is he aware that it has been widely reported—as his answer suggests—that the debate has gone beyond the F111s and is now centred on the F15-E strike eagles? Have there been any consultations with the British Government about that and, if so, what attitude are the Government taking? Will it be in the context of trying to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe, not increase them, as President Gorbachev has been trying to instill into the Western Alliance?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman found my answer unclear. It precisely answered the two points that he then made in his supplementary question. I made it absolutely clear that consultations are continuing, and I referred to a package of force restructuring and modernisation measures. Those measures were discussed in the nuclear planning group in April 1988 and discussions and consultations have continued. Furthermore, I have made it absolutely clear that no decisions have yet been taken.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been rumours that RAF Sculthorpe in north Norfolk might be designated as a new base for the F111s? Will my right hon. Friend comment on that rumour and, if there is substance in it, will he confirm that there will be the widest possible consultation before any final decision is taken?

I am aware that misleading stories have recently appeared in the press as though decisions had been taken. They are not true because no decision has yet been taken. I can confirm that——

Was it in The Times?

The story was correct in some newspapers and wrong in one. If the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) would like to check, he will find that one correspondent managed to get it wrong, unfortunately leaving out a "not" from his report.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Britain is becoming increasingly isolated as a NATO power in pushing so strongly for modernisation? Will he reconsider the commitment to a longer-range dual capability aircraft which could undermine the INF treaty? Is Britain in favour of disarmament in Europe or not?

I have made it absolutely clear that we are in favour of a reduction in conventional arms. We are in favour of a substantial reduction in strategic arms. We are in favour of the removal of intermediate nuclear forces. We have a more successful record of achievement on disarmament than the Labour party has ever dreamt of. However, at the same time we know that we have achieved progress towards disarmament from a position of strength. We make no apologies for saying that we will maintain the defence of this country and of NATO while we continue with the process of disarmament.

Although I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, will he bear in mind, when coming to a decision about the deployment of such systems, the fact that the Soviet Union has developed and deployed its own air cruise missile system for its own aircraft?

The latest information about the scale of Soviet nuclear resources suggests substantial quantities and that they are pursuing an increased programme of modernisation. Against that background, it would be grossly irresponsible if we did not ensure that, while pursuing sensible disarmament measures, we keep our own defences modernised and effective.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the NATO nuclear planning group last met; and what items were on the agenda.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the NATO nuclear planning group last met; and what items were on the agenda.

The NATO nuclear planning group is meeting today and tomorrow in Portugal. I have postponed my attendance so that I could answer Questions in the House today. My hon. Friend the Minister of Stale for the Armed Forces is attending today, and I shall join the meeting immediately after Question Time. The group will discuss a range of matters concerning nuclear issues.

When the Secretary of State gets to the nuclear planning group meeting does he intend to agree to the return of cruise missiles to Britain on American aircraft? Does he not support the follow-on to the Lance missile, which recycles cruise missile warheads and brings them back to Europe? Is he not, on behalf of the Tory Government, acting as a bulwark for rearmament in Europe, which the rest of western Europe does not want?

I cannot accept that. I have made it clear that we have given strong support to disarmament. The lesson—which I believe profoundly, but on which I know that the hon. Lady and I will never agree—is that because we have held a strong position we have been able to achieve greater stability and peace in Europe. We intend to maintain the policy which has proved such a success.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm o r deny reports in The Times and The Guardian yesterday which suggested that the air cruise missile will be brought back to Britain by the United States? Will he confirm or deny that the Government have agreed that this should happen? Are the Government not being deceitful to the people through their actions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people thought that the cruise missile was going for all time and it is an absolute disgrace that the Government should follow this policy?

There is no question of reintroducing cruise missiles of the type that the hon. Gentleman mentions. He is talking about discussions that have taken place separately on a weapon that is known as the tactical air-to-surface missile, and also a French equivalent. We have made it clear publicly that we are looking at both as possible alternatives in our modernisation programme to replace the existing free-fall bomb. To try to describe that as the reintroduction of land-based cruise missiles is a total distortion. There is no truth in it whatsoever.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gap between nuclear weapons in the East and in the West continues to widen? Would it not be very strange if the Government were to become more worried about the possibility of extra weapons in the West than about actual weapons coming into service in the East?

I fear that those people who have been proved to have lost the argument about the importance of maintaining strong and credible defences continue to put their old argument, which proved so disastrous and achieved no disarmament whatever. We are proud of what is happening and we shall play our full part in it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that both the United States and Britain are well advised to seek to modernise their weapons systems, particularly their nuclear weapons systems and at the same time to try to respond to the changed mood in Moscow towards genuine disarmament at all levels? Would not the real mistake be to seek to substitute one for the other?

My hon. Friend is correct. Everybody knows that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact have been pursuing their modernisation programme. They respect, and I have no doubt that President Gorbachev respects, the fact that we intend to ensure the security of our people, our country and NATO, in the same way as he seeks to secure his.

If the Secretary of State is asked, how will he explain that the British Government clearly believe that our sea-based nuclear missiles are an insufficient deterrent because we insist on the maintenance of land-based nuclear weapons whether or not we have conventional parity?

I think that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) is aware that the principle of flexible response has been the NATO strategy for a considerable time, rather than dependence on a single strategic nuclear deterrent. He will also be aware that that strategy was reaffirmed at the recent NATO summit.

At the NATO nuclear planning group meeting will my right hon. Friend remind some of our allies that it would be unwise to anticipate the further successful outcome of talks in Vienna and elsewhere on weapons reductions by further reducing their own defence commitment? It is especially important to remind those allies who already spend less than 3 per cent. of GDP on defence.

It is very important at this time, when there is the opportunity for sensible disarmament built on confidence on both sides, that there is no unilateral disarmament which might destabilise the NATO position. Therefore it is extremely important that NATO holds together. It will be difficult for SACEUR—the Supreme Allied Commander Europe—and NATO command to give advice on exactly how the reductions are to be made and how equality of equipment, which one of my hon. Friends has already mentioned, will be achieved. A number of difficult decisions must be reached, which will be made all the more difficult if some countries anticipate what their share should be.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next visit the Nottingham, North constituency to visit the Territorial Army base in Hucknall lane.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the Territorial Army base in Hucknall lane, Nottingham, in the foreseeable future.

Is the Minister aware that the TA conforms to the Government policy of having conventional defence on the cheap? Would he agree to investigate those companies—particularly a number of those which donate to the Conservative party—which, unlike many other companies, do not allow their staff time off to participate in TA activities?

The national employers' scheme is directed towards employers who are being encouraged to enable their working men and women to take time off for TA activities. I am pleased to say that as a result of the success of that scheme some 50 per cent. of the work force is involved.

If my right hon. Friend should change his mind and decide to visit that TA unit, will he take the opportunity to explain that instead of having equipment of the same high standard as its regular counterparts, if we ever followed the policies advocated by the Opposition and slashed £5 billion from the procurement programme, the TA would be drilling with broomshanks and plimsolls instead of up-to-date equipment?

My hon. Friend draws what must be an irrefutable conclusion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about stand-off missiles.

My right hon. Friend, as he just told the House, will be meeting the United States Secretary of Defence later today at the meeting with NATO's nuclear planning group, when he will discuss a wide range of matters of mutual interest. It is not our general practice to disclose the details of such discussions.

I understand that it is not the Minister's intention to give us details of those discussions, but it would be useful if he could give the House some assurance about whether there is any intention to purchase stand-off hydrogen bomb missiles from the United States.

Yes, there is a NATO requirement for a medium-range stand-off weapon. That was emphasised in paragraph 92 of the Select Committee report, which suggested that that was the preferable route now that the free-fall bombs were becoming obsolete. The warhead will, of course, be manufactured in this country. We are talking only about the delivery systems.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Americans will he remind them of the problem that we are facing in Europe created by the West Germans refusing to allow adequate capability for low-flying aircraft? That has the result of reducing our deterrent capability in the eyes of the enemy. Will he therefore confirm that the need for a stand-off weapon system is essential if the United States and the Royal Air Force are to be credible deterrents?

There is no doubt that the stand-off weapon is a requirement and my right hon. Friend will be discussing that. I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend will have noted the points made by my hon. Friend about low-flying aircraft.

Does not the Minister agree that stand-off missiles on aircraft with in-flight refuelling, the like of which have been described in the press this week, will have a range capable of replicating the work which would have been done by ground-launched cruise missiles, and that because of that and because of their range, these would circumvent at least the spirit if not the text of the INF treaty? It is thus an extremely provocative deployment at a time when we seek further disarmament and possible reductions in tension in Europe.

Those missiles do not come within the scope of the INF treaty, which is ground based, and they are not comparable with cruise missiles because both the method of delivery and the warhead are different.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he now plans to take to increase the recruitment of ethnic minorities into the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

We have received the report on the study that we commissioned earlier this year into ethnic minority recruitment to the armed services and will be making an announcement shortly. In the meantime, we are giving greater attention to recruitment from the ethnic minorities, which we are keen to encourage.

Has it not taken the Government an unconscionable time to get round to doing something about this? Is the Minister aware that we are talking not just about recruitment of non-commissioned ranks but about commissioning for ethnic groups within all services and all ranks. I shall be interested to know how many black RAF officers the hon. Gentleman meets in the next six months of his ministerial duties.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures. He knows that we are anxious to recruit from ethnic minority communities. We have had policies under way to this end and shall no doubt be introducing more. Examples of how we seek to recruit from the ethnic minorities include translating recruiting pamphlets into ethnic minority languages, advertising in the ethnic minority press and making greater use of black recruiters in careers information offices.

Is my hon. Frend keener to recruit from ethnic minorities than from the rest of the community or is he equally keen?

Such linguistic discussion would be invidious. We are keen to recruit to the full level of manpower needed for the operational role.

When does the Minister intend to comment on the report that he has received about racism in the Army?

I regret that I did not hear all the right hon. Gentleman's question. Obviously, the report, which is being considered by officials and on which Ministers will shortly make an announcement, will deal with all factors in the perception of the ethnic minorities in relation to the armed services.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make an announcement on the awarding of the contract for radar for the European fighter aircraft.

Discussions on the choice of radar are continuing between the four nations participating in the European fighter aircraft project. An announcement will be made as soon as they have been concluded.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the European fighter aircraft we have a winner with, for a change, a choice of two excellent radar systems, both of which have considerable British industrial components? Following discussions with their West German counterparts, are Ministers any nearer reaching a decision about which radar to choose?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is a British industrial element in both bids. The MFD 2000 system is subject to a technical evaluation at present and we expect the results of that in the middle of next month. The national armament directors will then consider the matter and report to the Secretaries of State of the partner countries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the efficiency of current technology to ascertain whether nuclear weapons are being carried at sea.

The technology to which the hon. Gentleman refers would require considerable development before its full value can be assessed.

Does the Minister welcome the experiments taking place in the United States with the Soviet Navy? Will her Majesty's Government be making vessels available for such experiments to take place involving the British Navy?

We welcome any experiments which may provide further data in the complex sphere of verification. Although this technology exists, it has not yet reached a stage at which we could have any confidence in its accuracy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is considering changing the policy of the Defence Export Services Organisation.

No, Sir. The policy of the Defence Export Services Organisation remains unchanged. It will continue in its successful work of assisting United Kingdom companies, both large and small, to market and sell their defence products and services overseas. It is through the sustained efforts of British industry, with the support of the DESO, that Britain is able to maintain its position as a major exporter of defence equipment.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of DESO and of the companies in the north-west which contribute to it. Does he agree that any attempt which might made along the lines of the Labour party's document on changing procurement policy, with a cut of a quarter in the defence budget, would lead to the loss of jobs and investment and would greatly damage the nation's balance of trade?

Yes, indeed. We have a surplus of £517 million in this sphere and it is paradoxical that Labour Members should suggest an arms conversion agency which would take industrial production away from the defence industries and into industries which they regard as socially acceptable.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October 1989.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall the 1979 election statement by the Prime Minister, that under a Conservative Government

"the products will stream from our factories and workshops while the customers of the world scramble over each other to buy them."

The hon. Lady should understand that export performance, as recorded in the figures reported today, continues to be encouraging—[Interruption.] Export volume performances excluding erratic items are up over the latest three months by 8·5 per cent. in volume terms. That is consistent with the Prime Minister's claim.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October 1989.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the scenes last night of 250,000 East Germans demonstrating in Leipzig were a reminder yet again of the utter bankruptcy of Communism? Does he further agree that it is ridiculous for any party in the West to want to see a return to state control and economic collectivism?

The point that my hon. Friend makes is entirely valid and of great importance. It shows that people all over the world are turning away from the doctrine adopted by the Labour party, which has a prescription for Britain from which the rest of the world is trying to escape.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the Government are so opposed to the sensible course of referring the ambulance dispute to binding arbitration?

Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, there is no provision for independent arbitration in the Whitley council procedures. On offer to the London ambulance service qualified staff is an increase of more than 9 per cent., with a consequent increase in overtime rates of almost 20 per cent. The real value of the 1986 salary structure has been more than maintained and the offer also contains the prospect of a review of that structure in the light of three years' experience. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing that those who are currently taking quite unjustified industrial action would return to the negotiating table and discuss the dispute there.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not help to get the ambulances back on the road by supporting binding arbitration as a means of resolving the dispute, will he tell us at what stage the Government intend to honour the pledge made by the Prime Minister that ambulance workers' pay should have firm and automatic linkage to national price or wage rises?

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the particular proposals put forward some years ago for linkage of ambulance men's pay to that of other services was specifically rejected by the Clegg commission, which was appointed by the Labour Government. I return to the point that there is no provision for independent arbitration in the current arrangements. National Health Service management must retain control over the pay of National Health Service staff, and since 94 per cent. of those working in the NHS have already settled their pay this year without industrial action, it is greatly to be hoped that the ambulance men will do the same.

It really is not good enough for the Government, faced with the ambulance dispute, to use Whitley and Clegg as excuses. When will they face up to their responsibilities, support binding arbitration and get the ambulances back on the roads?

We do not need any advice from the right hon. Gentleman about facing up to responsibilities. When will he face up to his responsibility to confront an industrial dispute without supporting those who take industrial action?

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Against the background that we read of the possible non-uprating of child benefit for the third successive year, may I urge my right hon. and learned Friend even now to consider an alternative—the exclusion of the 500,000 taxpayers who have children and who pay the higher rate of tax from eligibility for child benefit, and the restoration of a full increase for the remainder of recipients? That would have widespread approval in the country and bring much-needed relief to many poorer families.

I understand my hon. Friend's sincere concern with this topic. I must tell him, first, that any statement on the uprating of benefits will be made shortly in the usual way, and I cannot comment on the matter ahead of it. However, taking account of the principle that my hon. Friend endorses—that there should be some attempt to concentrate help on those in greatest need—he should surely take account of the fact that since 1979, real take-home pay for families on the average wage and with two children has risen by almost a third. In our policy to concentrate help on those most in need through family credit we provided last year about £200 million extra for low-income families, another £100 million extra for non-working families, through income support, and from April this year we have provided for the poorest families an extra £70 million over and above the amount that they would have received through the uprating of benefits. That has been a generous application of the principle that my hon. Friend urges.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

I have been asked to reply.

It is clear from the reply that the deputy Prime Minister gave some moments ago that he has no understanding of the anguish expressed by millions of families in this country or of the horror felt on both sides of the House at the news that child benefit is to be frozen. Does he not realise that one in three families in Manchester already lives in poverty, and that 12,000 children are now not entitled to free school meals because of the so-called targeting of benefits? How do the Government justify these relentless attacks on our children in not uprating child benefit? The answer is certainly not means testing.

The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. The extent to which our social security expenditure of all kinds has risen during the 10 years that we have been in office—by some £17 billion, to a total of some £53 billion, so in real terms, after taking account of inflation, it has risen by more than a third—has been specifically designed to concentrate help on those who most need it, exactly as I described a moment ago. That is the right way to bring help to those in greatest need.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the congratulations of the House on his bold and wise decision, taken 10 years ago yesterday, to bring great economic benefits to this country by his foresight and daring in abolishing all exchange controls? Now that our EEC partners have decided to follow suit, does he agree that the Labour party can no longer rely on exchange controls to save its economic policies, despite its new-found European enthusiasm?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. He makes an extremely valid point. It is of great importance that the other countries in the European Community will be following the example that we set 10 years ago—contrary to the expectations of the Labour party, which predicted that abolition of exchange controls would be a great disaster. In fact, it has turned out to be a huge success and a disaster for Labour's economic insight.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a veteran of Commonwealth conferences. When the Government team returns from Kuala Lumpur will he seek two meetings—one with the new Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to console him, as a fellow sufferer, on the way in which he was treated by the Prime Minister, and one with the Prime Minister to try to teach her the difference between free speech and gross discourtesy?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not expressed satisfaction at the reform measures now under way in South Africa and has been unwilling to acknowledge the part played in bringing that about—not just through the efforts of the Commonwealth as a whole but through the courageous and consistent stance of the British Government, which was always plainly spelt out. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary agreed on each of the steps taken, on the communiqué endorsed at the conference, and on the statement issued subsequently. That statement explained clearly the position of the British Government, which has helped to bring about the changes that the whole House should welcome.

To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding energy conservation.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is good news that the £100 million invested by the Government has resulted in energy savings of some £500 million per year? Does he agree that much more needs to be done—not least in Government Departments. where energy costs are currently running at £300 million per year? Will he take steps to initiate savings in all Departments, and not least in the steamy sauna that passes for a House of Commons?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the need to apply the policy to the Government as a whole. He will recall that on 20 July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced the framework of a campaign to be applied to Government Departments, aimed at achieving savings of 15 per cent. of the total energy bill over the next five years and at investing 10 per cent. of the energy bill in measures to improve energy efficiency.

Does the Leader of the House recognise that energy conservation is important and that energy provision should not be left to the private sector? Should we not, therefore, ensure proper control of our energy and stop electricity privatisation so as to guarantee proper energy use and conservation?

Among other things, electricity privatisation policies will be directed at maintaining and improving energy conservation. As I have said, for the last four years for which figures are available the United Kingdom's ratio of energy use to GDP has been improving at twice the average of EC countries.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that privatisation of electricity will ensure that private companies will make profits by reducing the fuel that they burn and that energy conservation will be greatly improved by that means?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that privatisation induces a much more commercial and cost-conscious attitude throughout all sections of industry, as it will do in the respect that he mentions.

To ask the Prime Minister which G7 country has (a) the highest interest and (b) the highest inflation rate.

I have been asked to reply.

In view of that reply, and in view of today's trade figures, I do not wish to ask a supplementary question.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

I have been asked to reply.

I do not share the inability or unwillingness of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to ask a supplementary question. When the deputy Prime Minister meets the Prime Minister on her return from her triumph at the Commonwealth conference, will he encourage her to condemn the rebel cricket tour of South Africa?

The Government will continue, as they have always done, to uphold the provisions of the Gleneagles agreement.