asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the nature and extent of his Department's participation in the study by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's military committee of NATO's requirement for anti-tactical ballistic missile systems.

The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's studies of the requirement for anti-tactical ballistic missile systems.

In the light of the Minister's response, and if we are playing a full part at the moment, what role will the United Kingdom have in the decision-making process about the star wars programme?

This is not connected with the star wars, or SDI, programmes. It is an anti-tactical ballistic missile system and we are discussing it with our NATO allies. As ballistic missile systems are so accurate now, it is worth having tactical ones. That is a threat to which we must react.

Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to ensure that these missiles for use against ballistic missile attacks are developed as a matter of urgency, because anti-tactical ballistic missile systems, especially if applied to point defence, can greatly alleviate the threat directly posed to these shores by SS21s, SS22s and SS23s?

I accept my hon. Friend's point. The United Kingdom is participating in the NATO studies of the threat posed by anti-tactical ballistic missiles and the need to defend ourselves against them.

Will the Minister assure the House that the current interest in developing anti-tactical ballistic missile systems for Europe will not degenerate into some sort of stalking horse for the American SDI programme by enabling the Americans to try out in Europe technologies that would be banned by the ABM treaty?

We are not talking about related systems and I do not think that there is any danger of that happening.

Whatever he future of cruise missiles and SS20s, is it not as sure as night follows day that the anti-tactical ballistic missiles will still be required for NATO?

Yes, it all depends on how we perceive the accuracy of the missile systems. They are becoming much more accurate. If that is a problem that we must face, we must produce a system to counteract that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to announce a decision on the procurement of support helicopters for Her Majesty's forces; what is his estimate of the level of funding required for the procurement of such helicopters; and if he will make a statement.

I hope to be able to make an announcement about our future support helicopter requirements within the next few weeks.

As the Minister approaches a decision that is so vital for my community, I should like three assurances from him. First, will he fully consult the company before reaching any final decisions? Secondly, will he confirm that he realises that the phasing of orders is as important as their number, because drip feeding orders to Westland would be disastrous? Thirdly, will he bear in mind that our helicopter fleet in the central plain is so deficient—perhaps 100 aircraft light of our tactical needs—that an expert recently commented that we have only a meagre capacity to carry out a full air mobile deployment? If the Secretary of State does not recognise those facts, he is letting down the country and my community.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, if I can describe it in that way, and I can give him the first two assurances for which he asks. On his third point, he was trying to anticipate the outcome of the study that we have undertaken, which is wide ranging and has the object of establishing firmly what our precise military requirements will be.

My right hon. Friend is aware that my contituents have a substantial interest in this matter as well. Will he lay the myth, once and for all, that there is no need for more helicopters in the British armed services and accept that there is a need for more defence equipment of all sorts and none greater than the need for helicopters?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's great concern for his constituents, who certainly have an interest in this. I confirm that the study, which is coming towards completion, is addressing itself to precisely the question of how many helicopters we are likely to need for our military requirements in the near future. That will be the basis of the decision that we shall have to take.

Does the Minister agree that AST 404 was the product of a study, but that it did not produce helicopters? Is he aware that Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House have made representations to his Department over four years, and does he realise that without orders Westland is in grave danger of not surviving?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that it has taken some time to resolve this matter. As he will be well aware, exercises took place two years ago in central Europe which gave us food for thought as to what the real requirements for the future would be. As a result of that, this study is trying to articulate exactly what those needs will be.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Army is comparatively poorly equipped with helicopters and that there is a strong case for increasing our mobility rather than, say, purchasing more tanks? Will he agree to equip a new mobile brigade of Lynx helicopters from Westland?

Although I would not at this stage make the comparison that my hon. Friend makes with tanks, we certainly have requirements for more air mobility. The study is designed to address the way in which those requirements should be met.

Will the Minister confirm that there really is no future for Westland as a manufacturing company making helicopters without substantial orders from the British Government and in particular from the Ministry of Defence? There is no private sector solution to Westland's problem. Secondly, will he confirm that there is no military requirement for the Black Hawk helicopter, contrary to what was said in some circles during the famous battle for Westland?

On the latter point, we have not yet reached a conclusion on what types of helicopters might be required, so, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance either way on that point. On the neeed for helicopters and their increasing use, that is what the study is designed to establish.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the team from Westland, led by Sir John Cuckney, has made the position of that company totally clear and has not in any way indulged in what one might call the histrionics to which we have perhaps become accustomed in recent years?

I agree with my hon. Friend exactly. I am in touch with the chairman of the company and I am being fully briefed on the needs of the company, which I shall, of course, take fully into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom participation in the strategic defence initiative programme of any acceleration of deployment by the United States Administration.

The United States Government have announced no decision to deploy defences against strategic ballistic missiles. The position remains, as agreed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan at their Camp David meeting in December 1984, that strategic defence initiative-related deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation. The United Kingdom Government continue to support the strategic defence initiative research programme and United Kingdom participation in it.

What did the Secretary of State mean when he said that if our views were not taken into account we should have to consider what our action would be? Did he mean that if our views were not taken into account British participation in the SDI programme would be ended, and if not, why not?

I was asked what my reaction would be if I were told that the United States had some change in policy on SDI. I replied that we should have to wait and see what the proposals were before making such a comment.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any system such as SDI, developed by our friend and ally the United States, is a welcome contribution to future peace? Will he also welcome it in the context of the contribution that we in the United Kingdom are able to make and the jobs and technology that it brings to Britain?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Indeed, I should add that the United States and the Western Alliance would be deficient in their responsibilities if the Soviet Union were allowed to continue active research in that area without our having some security on our side from similar research.

Does the Minister think that research on SDI out of the laboratory will, despite the Soviet deployment of an anti-satellite system, be contrary to the ABM agreement?

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not for me or the British Government to interpret a treaty to which and to the negotiation of which we were not a party. It is, however, for the United Kingdom Government and for me to be concerned about the United States policy on the SDI programme and the effect that it might have on arms control negotiations. It is for that reason that I asked for and received last week in America an undertaking that if there were to be any substantial change in that policy we would be consulted before any such change were made.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of how much money has come into Britain as a result of taking part in the research programme? Has he any idea of how many jobs are involved, and can he confirm that this gives us a chance to have a say in whether the scheme is implemented?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I cannot confirm precisely how many jobs are involved, but about $34 milion worth of business has come to Britain as a result of our participation in the SDI programme. It is worth recalling that if we had not taken part in the programme very little of that would have come to Britain and our best talents would probably have gone across the Atlantic to take part in the programme there.

I accept that the Secretary of State acknowledges that we are not a signatory to the ABM treaty, but is it not incumbent upon the British Government to have a view as to whether that treaty should be interpreted narrowly, as many of the advocates in the United States suggest, or broadly, as the Reagan Government suggest?

We have repeatedly made it clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that we are content with the United States Government's policy on the SDI programme — that is the definition that they are currently using. We have also had an assurance that, as I have said, if there were to be any change we would be consulted before it was made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what he is reported to have said in the United States—that the British Government would be opposed to any British participation in SDI programmes where those programmes went outside what is called the narrow interpretation of the treaty? If that is the case, does the memorandum of understanding, which was signed by the Government, contain such a proviso and obstacle?

No, it does not contain any interpretations of the treaty. We believe in the treaty and we believe that it should be adhered to. It is for the two signatories to define how they see their own treaty.

I did not say what the hon. Gentleman has reported me as saying about our participation. I made it clear that we are content with the position as of now and that if there were to be any change in United States policy we should be concerned and would wish to be consulted before such a change was made.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on morale in the Royal Air Force.

Morale in the Royal Air Force in this 75th anniversary year is high. This is due in large measure to the Government's major re-equipment programme and maintenance of pay comparability.

I wish that I could share the Government's complacency, when the recommended ratio of pilots to aircraft is 2:1 and ours is 1·7:1, among the lowest in Europe, and when the mechanistic operation of premature voluntary retirement regulations means that trained Lightning pilots at RAF Binbrook are grounded because they have asked for PVR and their substitutes will graduate just as the Lightnings are taken out of service, making the whole thing look ridiculous. If the Minister is so complacent, why was it necessary to establish the Robson inquiry? When will we have the result of that inquiry, and until then will he modify the PVR regulations so that they are used in a more delicate and sophisticated way?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that premature voluntary retirement rates for officers and pilots in the Royal Air Force are down in the calendar year 1986 compared with 1985. We very much hope that that trend will continue.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when young men join the Royal Air Force to fly they are given the option of accepting a branch commission and thus spending all their time flying, or, alternatively, taking a general duties commission through a cadetship at Cranwell? Does he agree that in the latter case they will also be expected to carry out man-management responsibilities and that as part of their career structure it will fall upon them to take jobs that will train them for man-management? Does he therefore agree that one of the problems that we face and the resulting publicity have arisen from the fact that one individual RAF pilot did not understand that situation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. About one third of all RAF pilots—of whom there are about 3,500—at any one time are on ground duties, and such ground duties are essential to the furtherance of their careers.

How many skill shortages are there within the RAF? How many similar examples are there to that of my constituent who had his request to buy himself out of the RAF deferred for nine months because of the skill shortages?

Recruitment into the RAF is good. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, it was in 1948 that the then Labour Government introduced a minimum return of service of three years upon promotion to squadron leader and higher. In 1978 the then Labour Government instituted a maximum three-year waiting period for PVR applications.

Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the greatest danger to morale within the Royal Air Force will come from the threat of all the Opposition parties to cancel Trident and that the cancellation costs of that operation would strip the RAF of virtually all resources?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that in the last year of the Labour Government the PVR rates were approximately twice the present level.

Is the Minister unable to combine a little bit of staff duties for pilots with some flying experience as well? Is that beyond the planning schemes?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has great experience in matters connected with the Royal Air Force. As I explained earlier, it is natural in the career of all pilots in the Royal Air Force to have both flying and ground duties. Flying duties often follow ground appointments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that RAF Shawbury in Shropshire, which is on the boundary of my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, is an excellent establishment, with high morale, providing extremely good back-up for groups such as the air training corps based in Shrewsbury? If my hon. Friend is aware that if a particular officer in the RAF wishes publicly, in the newspaper, to decry promotion, there are tactful officers at RAF Shawbury who are more than deserving of such promotion?

I thank my hon. Friend for that. As I said earlier, morale within the RAF is extremely high. I compliment my hon. Friend on the support that he has given to the RAF and the reserves.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in January a number of hon. Members representing constituencies in Norfolk visited RAF Coltishall and that as a result of our discussions with officers and men we can confirm that morale is high? Officers and men understand the important defensive role that they must perform in the defence of this country.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I concur with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Department's contracts are currently subject to cancellation charges of 125 per cent.

There is one contract where the maximum potential liability is set at 125 per cent. of the contract price; it is for the first Trident boat, HMS Vanguard. It has been agreed, however, that once the contract for the second boat has been placed, the normal liability limit of 100 per cent. of the contract price will apply to both contracts.

Does the Minister's answer not show the extent to which the Government lack confidence in their ability to sell the Trident project to the British electorate? Is not the high level of surcharge simply an illustration of the Government's attempt to try to bind a future Parliament — a Parliament in which there will be a majority of Labour Members opposed to the Trident scheme and keen to cancel it?

No. Cancellation charges of 125 per cent. were offered on the first contract to take into account the massive investment that had to be made by VSEL on the first boat and the long lead times. That is the maximum amount that might be spent. The work must be done before the money can be paid out.

What contracts will be under threat from the prospect of United States auditors being able to look at the books of United Kingdom companies? Is the Minister aware that this activity may well fall foul of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and lead to the companies involved being placed on the denials list and not being able to obtain equipment from the United States?

I do not think that there is any indication of contracts being under threat in that way.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received any representations that defence expenditure should be reduced as a percentage of gross domestic product.

My Department has received representations on various aspects of defence expenditure.

Can my right hon. Friend estimate the impact on the defence budget of reducing expenditure to the NATO average of GDP, which I understand is Labour party policy? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that would involve a reduction of more than 30 per cent., which is more than the equivalent of the total procurement budget? Does that not give the lie to the Labour party's claim that its policies will involve improving our conventional forces?

My hon. Friend is broadly right. It appears from the Labour party's national executive document that the Labour party proposes to reduce defence spending as a proportion of gross domestic product to the average of the NATO allies. The average is 3·3 per cent. and our figure is about 5 per cent. A reduction of some £6 billion in the defence budget would be needed to meet the average figure. That is what the Labour party appears to be preparing to do.

So that I can decide whether to make representations against it, is there any truth in the story that the Navy is to be cut in the autumn?

I have not heard such a report, but if I saw such a report I should certainly ascertain whether it had any validity.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Trident were cancelled and replaced by either the French M5 missile system or the sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles it would require 11 submarines rather than four and would be more than twice as expensive and, therefore, catastrophic to the defence budget?

My hon. Friend is correct. It seems to be becoming generally accepted that any alternative to the Trident system based on cruise missiles would certainly require considerably more missiles and, therefore, considerably more boats to make it effective against likely defences at the time. It follows that it would be considerably more expensive. My hon. Friend is quite right about that.

If expenditure on Zircon is not part of the secret Vote, why does the Secretary of State refuse to answer my questions and tell me under what Vote and sub-head that expenditure has been incurred? If Parliament is to accept not being told the sum expended, we surely have a right to know under which Vote or Votes the money has been expended.

That does not arise under this question. As the project that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is secret, he will not expect me to talk about it. He should know perfectly well by now, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has confirmed, that the conventions about informing the House of Commons of expenditure of this sort have been completely fulfilled by the Government.

Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the defence policies of the leader of the Social Democratic party were put into effect, not only would the missiles cost twice as much if they were sea-launched, but we should incur £3 billion cancellation costs on Trident, so we should be paying twice as much for a system that was half as effective?

My hon. Friend is correct. It would certainly be considerably more expensive. Unfortunately, it would also become progressively less effective until it was not a deterrent worth having for any money. That is its real disadvantage.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I am making a representation to him about defence expenditure? Is he aware, further, that the Government throw money around like confetti on defence? When will he persuade the Government to throw some money around for the people living in poverty in my constituency? How about an answer to that question to help the people in real need?

As the Government are spending vastly more on social services than did the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported, I do not think that that comment comes very well from him. He will find that most of his supporters, even if they have voted Labour all their lives, will strongly support the Government's defence policy as against his own.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish the reports of the working parties regarding the future of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray and Royal Air Force North Luffenham.

It is not our practice to publish reports which are prepared for study within the Ministry of Defence. The future of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps at Melton Mowbray is not the subject of examination by any working party. I shall advise my hon. Friend of the outcome of the study on RAF North Luffenham as soon as possible.

In view of the fearful mauling that his Department has had from the Public Accounts Committee over the proposed merger of the Defence music schools, and to avoid further hassles from me, will my hon. Friend throw into the wastepaper basket any half-baked proposals that he may be about to make which adversely affect the excellent units in my constituency?

I note what my hon. Friend said, but we have no half-baked proposals to put before the House or to my hon. Friend. When we reach a decision, we shall communicate it to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Defence schools of music.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence expects to announce a decision soon.

Will the Minister explain to the people of Portsmouth what is delaying his decision? Is he aware that he has written to them on at least three occasions, the first as far back as July last year, saying that the decision is imminent? Will he make a decision also about the use of the land that the Ministry of Defence is holding at Eastney? Will he explain to the people of Deal, Portsmouth and Uxbridge what the problem is and what information is still needed for the decision to be made?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is far better for us to reach the right decision, however long it takes. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the amount of surplus land and married quarters is monitored closely and constantly. It is our intention to dispose of all surplus land and married quarters as promptly as possible.

Will the Minister recognise that, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, major difficulties are caused in both Deal and Eastney? Would it not be better to take a speedy decision? Have the Government not had long enough to think about it? Should not early decisions be taken?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise us if we reached too rapid a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the future financial arrangements for the payment for work on the Trident project.

The future financial arrangements for payment for work on the Trident programme will continue to be in accordance with normal Ministry of Defence procurement and accounting procedures.

Will the Minister assure the House that conventional defence support, including the frigate ordering programme, will not suffer as a result of the increased expenditure on the Trident programme?

Yes, particularly as the Trident programme is not expected to take more than 3 per cent. of the total defence budget or, in the peak year, 6 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend say how imminent is the placing of the order for Trident 2?

I cannot give a date to my hon. Friend at present, but I recognise his great concern about this matter. We hope to be able to do so before too long.

Can the Secretary of State not he more specific about the future of our frigates and our surface fleet, not least because of the disclosure in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday of the likelihood of our frigate fleet dropping to about 44 or 45 within two years? Will he confirm that that will not be the case and that the frigates will not suffer as a result of Trident?

I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman what I and my hon. Friends have said for a long time, that we expect the frigate fleet in the Royal Navy to remain at about 50, which is what it is at present. The hon. Gentleman will also be as aware as I am that in the current financial year we have already placed orders for three type 23 frigates.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in all defence projects and spending programmes there are always more people looking for money to be spent and that during the period of the Tornado programme, which is a much larger expenditure programme, the service has continued, despite all the dismal Jimmies who said that it would not be possible?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The Tornado programme is in fact a more expensive programme than Trident, but it is also the case that the Trident programme produces the most effective contribution to our defence and could not be replaced at the same cost in any other way.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on morale in the armed services.

Morale in the armed services remains high.

Will the Minister then say why it is that there are cuts in recruitment to the Royal Navy and cuts in expenditure on the Royal Navy and why it is that middle officer personnel are leaving the Royal Navy? Will this not reduce the operational effectiveness of the Royal Navy?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been a significant increase—approximately 20 per cent. in real terms — in expenditure on the armed services since the fiscal year 1978–79. That has involved a substantial amount of re-equipment, including re-equipment for the Royal Navy. As for the premature voluntary retirement figures, which are often cited as a symptom of morale, those figures in the Royal Navy have stabilised and the trend is down.

Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing could depress the morale either of our armed forces or anybody else in this country who is interested in defence more than the plans of the Opposition to abolish Trident, the nuclear deterrent, and to leave this country vulnerable to nuclear blackmail?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The figures for PVR applications, as opposed to exits, in the last year of the Labour Government were almost twice as high as the rate today.

Does the Minister not think that morale in the Royal Navy must suffer when, given the mining threat, they see that little more than half the minesweepers and minehunters that were ordered under the £1 billion modernisation programme are likely to come on stream by the 1995 deadline, given the curbs on defence spending?

This Administration has ordered many more ships in the same period of time than did the last Labour Government. As for recruitment to the Royal Navy, we continue to meet our targets.

Does the Minister not agree that while the PVR rates may have stabilised, they have stabilised at the lowest figure since the mid-1970s, when unemployment was considerably lower than it is now, and that there is little incentive for those individuals who wish to remain in the Royal Navy to do so, given the unpleasantness that much of their work pattern is forcing upon them?

I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Indeed, I am not sure what the direct correlation is between the rate of PVR applications and exits and the level of unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from trade unions about orders for fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Obviously I am opposed to the arms race, but will the Minister agree to meet shop stewards and other trade union representatives from Ferranti to discuss this matter, because it is a very important issue in Leith and in many parts of Britain? Will he agree to meet the shop stewards and trade union representatives?

I am always more than prepared to meet trade union representatives. I was at Ferranti in Edinburgh quite recently. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have impressed upon him the need to have an up-to-date European fighter to meet the Soviet threat, because the impression given by the hon. Gentleman is that he would welcome it.

Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the trade unions regarding an interim engine for the future European fighter aircraft? Can he confirm that he would regard it as intolerable that the United Kingdom, German and Italian forces should choose an aeroplane powered by an American engine when we want the RB199?

I accept my hon. Friend's point. It is the Government's objective that there should be a British engine in the fighter.

What progress has been made with the European fighter aircraft, especially as the experimental aircraft programme has been grounded through lack of Government funding? When will development work begin? Can we be assured that there will be no further delay, especially as we know that the Germans are re-winging Phantom so that it will be operational beyond 1995? Doubts are therefore put over German co-operation in the project. If we do not get the EFA, will the RAF end up with the F18 orders?

As a participating country, the United Kingdom agreed with Germany, Italy and Spain in August 1985 to proceed with the project definition phase. The industries in those nations embarked on a study in September 1985 and that was completed in September last year. The project definition reports from industry are now being evaluated and we hope to be able to make a decision before very long.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current position of Royal Ordnance plc.

In accordance with plans announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 24 July 1986, we are negotiating with four companies to sell the Government's 100 per cent. shareholding in Royal Ordnance plc. No final selection has yet been made of the company with which a sale contract will be signed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise that there is considerable concern among the work force at all levels about the delays that are being caused to Royal Ordnance? Bearing in mind how successful the company has been, is, and will be, does my hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need to resolve the matter of ownership as soon as possible?

We certainly accept that point. The bids are due in the middle of next month and we hope to be able to make a decision not too long after that.

Does the Minister not realise that there is considerable concern among the employees? One source of concern relates to conditions of service and pensions. The Minister will know that when the transfer from the Civil Service to the plc took place most of the conditions were protected under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and other provisions. Can he give us a guarantee that those conditions will remain and will not be changed as a result of a change of share ownership?

Yes, I can give that undertaking. We are talking here about a sale of shares. The conditions of the employees and the terms under which they are employed will not change.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has reached a decision on future helicopter needs for the Army; and if he will make a statement.

I refer to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave earlier to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).

Would it help this issue if a decision was reached on whether the RAF or the Army controlled battlefield helicopters in future? The present division of responsibility is causing confusion in defence policy.

I know that this issue has been raised before and we have considered it. However, I do not believe that any changes are envisaged at the moment.

What progress is being made with the NH90? There was a great drive behind that European collaborative machine 18 months ago, but it seems, more or less, to have disappeared from sight.

The NH90 is still under consideration with our European partners.

In making a decision about Army helicopter procurement, will the Minister assure the House that he will afford the British services in Germany the same level of mobility as is enjoyed by other NATO forces on the Western front?

The air mobility of British forces in Germany is a matter that we have to take into account when we look to our ordering requirements.

My hon. Friend has heard the Opposition voice their dislike of the Black Hawk helicopter. Will he give an undertaking that the Ministry of Defence will do all it can to encourage overseas orders for the Black Hawk to be built at Yeovil?

There are a number of export opportunities for the Black Hawk, one of which is in Sweden. We are giving all our support to that.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987."

No decision has yet been taken. As in previous years, however, I hope that it will be possible to publish in the spring, in good time for an examination by the Select Committee on Defence and a full debate in the House before the summer recess.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House that the expenditure on Trident will make it difficult to sustain proper expenditure on the Navy, Army or Royal Air Force conventional forces?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong on that matter. The Trident programme is good value for money. If any single programme was going to make it more difficult to buy other conventional equipment, it would probably be the Tornado programme rather than the Trident programme.