To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he plans to do with the aircraft taken from the front-line strength of the Royal Air Force under "Options for Change".

Some will be used in fleet management or as long-term reserve; others will be disposed of.

Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that surplus aircraft will not be supplied to the evil dictator of Indonesia? Will the discussions between the Secretary of State and that dictator on 19 September about military co-operation now be ended in view of last week's massacre in illegally occupied East Timor?

I know that the hon. Lady would like to get rid of every aircraft in the Royal Air Force if she could. However, that view is not shared by the House or, I believe, by the hon. Lady's management committee. All export controls of armaments and all our customers are subject to the most rigorous control and scrutiny, as she knows. I certainly do not intend to reveal any of the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the leader of another state, as they would have to be confidential.

My right hon. Friend will know that reserve aeroplanes cannot simply be trundled out of a hangar and launched into the air. What provision is my right hon. Friend making to ensure that there will be enough reserve air and ground crews to fly and maintain those aeroplanes in an emergency?

There are three categories of readiness: one month's recovery, three months' recovery and six months' recovery. As the reduction in the strength of the Royal Air Force in terms of air frames proceeds, there will be a number of crews on whom we can call should it be necessary to reactivate those aircraft.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total estimated annual operating costs of Trident for the first five years of operation.

We do not expect the running costs of the Trident force to be significantly different from those of Polaris.

That is about £2 billion for the first five years. Is not it madness to be spending billions of pounds on a missile system which does not deter and may not work —and when we have no one at whom to point it? Cannot the Secretary of State think of better uses for the perhaps upwards of £20 billion which will be spent on the Trident missile system in capital and investments?

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should come out with those remarks about the deterrent in which we are investing just when his party is purporting to change its policy. Presumably he is about to resign the Whip, or something of that sort, from the Labour party in this place.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Trident really is the queen of the defence chessboard and that many of us believe that the price that we have to pay for it is well worth paying? Will he confirm that there is a good argument for at least one European country having nuclear weapons?

Yes, indeed. Spending on defence is a way of reducing the chances of war. To that extent, the nuclear deterrent is very good value for money. I hope that the day when European defence does not rely solely on British and French deterrents will not come to pass, but there is clearly a risk that it could happen some time.

Having made a comparison with Polaris, how does the Minister reconcile having a strategic deterrent which is primarily devoted to NATO purposes when NATO is abandoning nuclear weapons to a considerable degree and when NATO per se would have no Soviet target for Trident?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, NATO is not abandoning nuclear deterrents. Some ranges of nuclear weapons are being eliminated and we totally support that. All the pronouncements from NATO of late have been to the effect that we regard nuclear deterrents as an important part of the armoury of NATO forces generally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to replace the Wessex helicopter used for search and rescue work with Sea King or other 24-hour capability helicopters.

I hope to be in a position to make an announcement early next year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for anticipating an announcement some time next year. Is he aware that, off the north Devon coast, our search and rescue capacity is 30 minutes away at RAF Brawdy? Excellent though that capacity is, on a cold wintry night it is too far away. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to provide not only the extra helicopters that are needed but the extra security that is desperately needed all the way across the Bristol channel.

My hon. Friend poses several questions on the subject. I hope that they will not be interpreted as questioning the adequacy of existing services. The House will be interested to know that, in the six months since my hon. Friend last questioned me on the subject, there have been 992 call-outs from RAF Chivenor and 591 people have been assisted. I pay tribute to the RAF crews concerned and to their skill, dedication and courage, often in very difficult circumstances.

Does the Minister understand that what he has just said underlines the public's high regard for search and rescue services provided by the Royal Air Force, particularly in a constituency such as mine, where RAF Leuchars is situated? It is well known that the Government have received an offer to privatise search and rescue services. In the light of what the Minister said and the undoubted expertise of the Royal Air Force in such matters, will he undertake that that expertise and high public regard will not be lightly thrown away?

I am grateful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Our commitment in air-sea rescue is to those at risk. We shall continue to meet the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport. What is the most cost-effective and efficient way of achieving those ends remains to be decided after proper examination.

What plans does my right hon. Friend have to continue air-sea rescue from Portland in my constituency? Does he have plans to extend operations during night time as well as day time? When is it envisaged that the new Merlin helicopter will be on site in Portland?

I have nothing to add to the present state of knowledge on plans for Portland and I have no knowledge that the EH 101 utility variant is to be used in the air-sea rescue role, at least in the predictable future.

Does the Minister accept that the almost 1,000 call-outs in the past six months reinforce the need to keep open all our bases on the western coast and that the proposed closures of RAF Brawdy, or Chivenor in north Devon, will leave part of our western coast vulnerable during dangerous times, particularly if there is no 24-hour operability? Will the Minister look yet again at the proposed closures, especially RAF Brawdy? If that versatile base is closed there will be an enormous impact on the local economy, especially when combined with the closure of the Royal Navy base at Trecwn.

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to make such comments. We are all used to the hypocrisy and double standards of the Labour party, whose representatives hang around every factory gate and base saying what terrible things will happen locally. Yet nationally, as we know, it is committed—indeed, it is under instructions from its confereence—to cut defence spending by £6 billion. There will be no announcement about the bases until the new year. I repeat the undertaking that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) a moment ago. We shall at all times continue to meet the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected date of commissioning of the first Trident nuclear submarine and the expected date of completion of the programme; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress with the Trident programme.

The overall Trident programme continues to progress to time and within budget towards an in-service date of the mid-1990s. It is not our practice to make public the precise dates of submarine construction or related programmes.

Will the Minister confirm that the total cost of the Trident programme is likely to be over £23 billion, that it is a monstrous waste of money, that to hold nuclear weapons is immoral and that in the interests of world peace he should cancel the programme and provide useful work for the highly skilled people who have manufactured those awful weapons of mass destruction?

I am sure that it is perfectly possible for the hon. Gentleman to make a trip to Barrow-in-Furness and explain to the work force there what useful work is available for them. I welcome what he said. He articulates a view which is widely shared on the Opposition Benches, although the Labour party finds it seemly to repress it at present. Certainly, it does no harm to ventilate that view in this place. I always welcome hearing it when it is delivered so lucidly from the mouth of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I would correct the hon. Gentleman on one point of fact. The cost of the system is already £1£8 billion less than the original estimate announced in the House in 1982.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment to the Trident programme. Does he believe that it would be safe in the hands of Members of Parliament who continually carp and criticise? Would it be safe in the hands of a party two thirds of whose members are committed to one-sided nuclear disarmament?

This question is best answered by the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North, who courageously and clearly articulated the views of, I suspect, more than half the Members on the Opposition Benches.

Why did the Minister's Department authorise Admiral Sir Julian Oswald to give information to the press on the specific question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), when Ministers continually refuse to answer that question in the House? Is not it reasonable that the House of Commons should be given the same information as is made available to the press in briefings? Does the Minister accept that it is entirely unsatisfactory to continue stonewalling on those questions while answering them in the press?

The boat will be launched early next year, but I must maintain the position that I and my predecessors have always maintained—that we do not disclose any further details in the House.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have only one policy on Trident—to build the fourth boat and complete the programme? That is unlike the Opposition, who have at least three conflicting policies—one for the Front Bench, a second for Back-Bench CND Members and, most disgraceful of all, a third for the electorate in Barrow.

That is absolutely right. I confirm what my hon. Friend says. We are interested in receiving a report of what took place when the Leader of the Oppositon went to Barrow and had a chat with the work force. He gave them several assurances, with which, apparently, they were satisfied, but the right hon. Gentleman will not give details of the assurances. That is certainly a subject on which the House would welcome further enlightenment.

Will the Minister now acknowledge that Labour party policy is to deploy the Trident system? When will the Government place an order for the fourth Trident boat and how much money have the Government already spent on it? Does he realise that his policy of drip-feeding the yard with funding for the fourth boat is unnecessarily extending the lives of the Polaris boats and jeopardising the employment of thousands of workers at Barrow, simply to safeguard the seat of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks)?

I did not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's question. In so far as I did understand it, I welcome his commitment of the Labour party to the Trident programme. I understood him to reproach us for being slow in commissioning the fourth vessel. If so, that is an instructive and important addition to the Labour party's nuclear policy and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminds me, is a fourth arm in such a policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the difference in cost to the Ministry of Defence of one infrantry regiment with two infantry battalions and two regiments of one battalion each.

The average cost of an infantry battalion is £12·5 million to £15 million in the United Kingdom and £17 million in Germany, irrespective of how it is organised regimentally.

I expected a reply somewhat like that. What my right hon. Friend said makes it clear that there will not be a great saving to the Ministry of Defence. If the amalgamation of the Royal Hampshire Regiment with the Queen's Regiment is part of the price of a reorganised and more efficient Army, the retention of the Royal Hampshires' name within the title of the new regiment must be part of the price of the amalgamation. Will he confirm that that would be possible?

I know that my hon. Friend will be fair and will recognise that the Queen's Regiment is an amalgamation of the Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment, the East Surrey Regiment, the Royal Sussex Regiment, the Queen's Own Royal West Kent Regiment and the Middlesex Regiment. I remember seeing those regimental names on the cemetery wall at Kranji in Singapore a month ago. They were all fine regiments which had to suffer the disappointment of amalgamation. Now the Royal Hampshire Regiment faces the same challenge and I know that it and the Queen's Regiment will wish to approach amalgamation in the most sensible and realistic way in the interests of both regiments.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that whatever savings the Ministry of Defence may make by the regimental amalgamations proposed in "Options for Change", there will be considerable on-costs to the public purse, through expenditure on unemployment and housing benefits? What are the Ministry of Defence estimates of the costs of that and what attempts are his Department making to cover some of those costs?

That is the most amazing question that I have heard in the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced that our plans for defence expenditure involve a cut of 6 per cent. in real terms during the next three to four years. The hon. Gentleman represents a party that has called for a 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure in real terms by the end of the decade. What impact will that have on unemployment and housing benefits and every other consideration?

Who bears the cost of the new uniforms in any amalgamated regiment? Is it true that the Army will contribute £10 to each uniform and that officers and others will have to pay any further costs? Secondly, what redundancy arrangements are being made for members of the amalgamated regiments who will not be needed for the defence of the nation?

On the first point, the usual uniform arrangements will apply as on previous occasions. I shall look into the matter that my hon. Friend has raised, because it covers a whole range of issues—resettlements and redundancy arrangements—and we are anxious that the fairest arrangements should be made.

Now that the Secretary of State has issued the timetable for the mergers of the regiments, can he confirm that, in the unlikely event of a Conservative victory, there is no prospect of the Scottish regiments' future being reviewed?

I have made it clear that the decisions have been taken. We have set out the timetable. The assessments made by the defence staff establish the right shape for our defences for the 1990s. The only real risk to regiments, as against the programme that we have set out, is a change of Government. If either of the Opposition parties was elected, many of the regiments that face amalgamation now would face certain disbandment.

When my right hon. Friend considers how different regiments have merged, will he take into account, rather than discourage, the concept of the big regiment and ensure that in future the Army is organised in big regiments?

As my hon. Friend knows, that was considered carefully by the Army when it looked into the best way to approach the reorganisation. I cannot go further. Obviously, the Army has recognised the role of the big regiment, but the role of other regiments with a particularly strong and well-established tradition was recognised and the Army Board also took account of those sensitivities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new initiatives he has to further policies of achieving transparency in the world arms trade.

Following the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution recommending to the assembly the establishment of a universal and non-discriminatory register of arms transfers.

Is the Minister alarmed by the news that appeared in the New York Times last Friday of the help that China has given to Algeria and North Korea in the advanced development of their nuclear weapons and by the fact that a new arms race for conventional and nuclear weapons is roaring ahead at an unprecedented rate?

I make allowances for the fact that the hon. Gentleman clearly prepared his supplementary before the news was announced. It might have been slightly more gracious of him to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in getting this universal and non-discriminatory register of arms transfers recommended to the Assembly. I pay tribute to the work of the United Kingdom delegation. One of my officials chairs the experts committee that laid the groundwork for this achievement. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is far better for all nuclear powers and principal arms manufacturers to move forward together, rather than for any one to break ranks and anticipate matters.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our friends and allies round the world who may be faced with potentially aggressive neighbours are entitled to look to us for support in arms sales, for example, of the Challenger tank which is made in Leeds, and that nothing proposed on restricting arms sales generally in the interests of world peace will prevent us from supporting our allies in circumstances where that is necessary?

Yes, of course. It is a cardinal principle of free determination that independent states have the right to determine their spending priorities. Unilateral action by the United Kingdom to stop defence sales would not stop the arms trade or bring about peace and security.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses currently owned by his Department and defence establishments are standing empty.

As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 9,966 Ministry of Defence owned houses and flats were vacant of which 9,834 were service married quarters. Many of those properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly and others were being considered for disposal. In addition, some 1,700 dwellings were in the process of being sold.

In view of that enormous number of empty dwellings, will the Minister give an assurance that none of the 1,600 wives—and their children—whose husbands have left them will be evicted? What will happen when another 40,000 military personnel are made redundant as a result of the White Paper proposals? Will there be any evictions? Will the Minister assure the House that empty houses will be handed over to local councils or housing associations for rent either to redundant service men or to others? Will he assure the House that the empty properties will not be sold off and service personnel and their families turned onto the street?

We attempt to treat the wives and ex-wives of service men living illegally in some of our properties as sympathetically as we can and that is why the 1,600 to whom the hon. Gentleman referred live in service accommodation.

What consideration is my hon. Friend giving to the scheme put forward by the services charity, SSAFA—the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association—to deal with redundant housing stock?

The SSAFA is in close touch with the Department at all times and we listen to what it has to say about problems associated with housing and everything else. We are listening hard to its recommendations and we take seriously the points that it makes to us.

We welcome the working party that has been established to deal with the housing issue. However, does the Minister recognise that there is an increasing problem of homelessness and squatting among ex-service personnel? Since the MOD housing stock is being sold off and other houses are being renovated and improved slowly, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the situation will not get better in the foreseeable future unless far greater urgency is given to the problem of properly housing and properly treating our service personnel and those whom we consider are no longer needed in our forces?

We are well aware of this problem and the last thing we want is ex-service men having to live in temporary accommodation. For that reason, we are making the best use of married quarters to ensure that people are not forced into such temporary accommodation.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the problem raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is probably the most crucial element in the redundancy programme to which my hon. Friend has referred? The priority given to resettlement through access to housing will probably be the greatest determinant of the fairness of Government policy on redundancy.

Yes, indeed, I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is a difficult Catch-22 situation because people cannot get a job until they have housing and they cannot get a mortgage until they have a job. Therefore, it is important that we solve the problem of where redundant people live so that they are able to get jobs, raise a mortgage and buy their own homes. At that stage they will no longer need the married quarters that we make available to them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from farmers about compensation for the effects of low flying on livestock.

The Ministry of Defence continues to receive representations from farmers about compensation for the effects of low flying on livestock. No more representations have been made recently than is usual.

Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling among farmers that the Ministry is being less helpful than it used to be in dealing with compensation claims arising from low flying by jets or helicopters? Does he recognise, for example, that insisting on veterinary reports may cause problems in that the examinations may cause distress to animals as well as additional cost to the farmer, who may not be compensated?

We try to be as helpful as possible, and I am aware of the case of Mr. Johnson in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We require some evidence of loss, either from a vet or an accountant, and as soon as we receive the reports we look at them speedily and with sympathy. Indeed, we always try to give the benefit of the doubt, and the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in the last three years we have received 577 claims and have settled 372 of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to the United Kingdom of the Gulf war; how much has been recovered from allied nations; and what will be final net cost to the taxpayer.

The additional defence costs of the Gulf conflict, to be spread over several years, are currently estimated to be about £2·5 billion. The bulk of the costs are offset by cash contributions from other Governments, totalling some £2 billion.

Is it not clear from that information that not only was the Gulf war a great success in military terms, but that the financial outcome was also most satisfactory from the point of view of the United Kingdom?

Yes, and I suspect that it has been an almost unique experience in that so much of the cost has been provided by other Governments. We are grateful to all Governments who came forward with cash for the war.

Apart from the fact that we made a profit from the Gulf war, may I ask the Minister to say what else was achieved by it, with Saddam Hussein still in power and carrying out his evil acts and with the dictatorship still in power in Kuwait? Why were our young men sent to their deaths in such a meaningless cause?

I find that, from start to finish, a most incredible contribution. I thought that I had made it clear that we did not make a profit on the war. It cost £2·5 billion and we got back £2 billion, which means that it cost us £500 million, which does not look to me like a profit. The hon. Gentleman will remember—indeed, his party purported to support the action of the coalition forces—that the objective was to liberate Kuwait. That is precisely what we did.

Does the Minister accept that, from the point of view of cost effectiveness, the members of the Territorial Army and the reserve forces who served in the Gulf war were remarkably cost effective? Does he agree that that bodes well for the TA review now under way in ensuring that the TA continues to give value for money and is geographically well balanced?

Yes. Clearly, in the current review of the Territorial Army, we are paying great attention to the need to continue to have a good geographical spread across the country. We pay tribute to the cost effectiveness of the Territorials.

If, as the Minister says, we recouped so much money on the Gulf war, may I ask him to explain why the Ministry of Defence is being so mean and tight-fisted towards some of those who were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice during that war? Is the Minister aware, for example, of the considerable number of Territorial Army members who served in the Gulf, including over 20 from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who have been refused their bounty because they did not serve their annual camp—precisely because they were in the Gulf for over 51 days? That is a scandalous way to treat people who risked their lives and came under repeated Scud attacks for the sake of their country. Will he order an immediate review of those cases with a view to ensuring that nobody is penalised financially purely because of the bravery that they showed and the sacrifice that they were prepared to make for their country?

What the hon. Gentleman says about members of the Territorial Army being refused their bounty is news to me, so I should be grateful if he would write to me. Of course we shall investigate such cases. As for our being mean and tight-fisted—the hon Gentleman's words—that is certainly not the case. There were very large claims from members of the Territorial Army for loss of earnings and most of them were met in full.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in making available a pool of British-registered merchant ships for emergency defence use.

The need for Government action to ensure that sufficient ships remain on the British register to meet defence needs is under consideration.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at least one of the lessons that we learnt in the Gulf war will be put into effect so that, should a similar international crisis occur again, more than one in five of those support vessels will fly the red ensign, as was the case in the Gulf war?

Yes, I hear what my hon. Friend says. However, Operation Granby proved that it is possible to go out onto the charter market for ships and find ships from many different nations to perform the tasks that we wanted of them. Although not as many red ensign ships supported our troops in the Gulf as might have, the task was carried out economically by other nations.

Does the Minister accept that the virtual destruction of the British Merchant Navy in the past 12 years has been one of the most severe crimes committed against this country by the present Government? Does he accept that the Government are reducing to fewer than 300 ships the number of vessels that now sail under the red ensign and that they have treated with utter contempt the red ensign, which has served this country well in times of peace and war? Will the Government, extremely belatedly, redress their policies, adopt some of the measures that other western Governments take to defend their merchant fleets, and accept the absurdity of an island state devoid of a merchant navy?

It is emotional language to talk about the virtual destruction of the British Merchant Navy. Several British shipping companies have chosen to opt out —to flag out—and to run their ships under another organisation. In the circumstances, we are talking about a vast subsidy from taxpayers' money in some form to stop that flagging out taking place. We must discuss carefully whether that is the best way that money should be spent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy of testing nuclear weapons at the Nevada test site.

The United Kingdom carries out such tests of nuclear warheads as are necessary to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our nuclear deterrent. Tests are carried out at the United States Department of Energy's site in Nevada under the terms of the 1958 agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. We conform to all relevant international treaties related to nuclear testing.

Will the Minister confirm or deny that a British nuclear test, code-named Bristol, is due to take place soon in Nevada? The House will find it difficult to understand why the country needs another nuclear test, especially when the basic technology has been tested countless times before. Does the Minister recall that last year's EC conference on those issues ended in disagreement over nuclear testing? Which is more valuable—a few more British nuclear tests or a worldwide agreement on stopping all nuclear tests?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not general practice to confirm or deny that nuclear tests are about to take place. As for the validity of those tests, I remind him that it is important to have effective nuclear warheads, and testing is the only way to establish whether warheads are effective. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's position on nuclear weapons—like many Opposition Back Benchers, he is probably totally against them—he will agree that if we are to have them, they should operate safely. That is one of the benefits of nuclear testing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the future of the Scottish regiments and battalions; and if he will make a statement.

I have received many such representations and I well understand the depth of feeling on the part of those expressing their concern. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in the recent defence debate, under our restructuring proposals, the proportion of Scottish units in the Army overall will increase rather than decrease.

Will the Secretary of State specify the exact circumstances that led the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland to give the clear impression during the Kincardine and Deeside by-election that a review of that decision was possible? Was that a collective decision by the Tory party or the Cabinet to raise false expectations or were the Ministers acting in a freelance capacity?

The position is precisely clear and has been confirmed. I have made it clear that we have made decisions for the future structure of the Army that will result in a higher proportion of the Army overall being drawn from Scotland—I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. Since then we have published the timetable for the amalgamation of regiments, and it was to that fact that my right hon. Friends were perfectly fairly drawing attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conclude a sale of the Princess of Wales RAF hospital, Ely.

We expect to conclude a sale of the Princess of Wales hospital at RAF Ely at the earliest opportunity commensurate with our responsibility to maximise disposal receipts.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept the view of the local district health authority that it is absolutely essential that the core facility of the hospital should be available for the district health authority to provide treatment through the NHS? Will he ensure that when considering any bids, any prospective purchases for the hospital, the needs of the health authority will be borne in mind?

Yes, of course, I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. We shall continue to confer with the local health authority. We have been in touch with it about the proposed sale of the site and will continue to be.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent report of Lancaster health authority, a copy of which I sent him, showing the immense progress that it has made during the past year —all within its budget? Is he aware of the vast increase since 1979 in the number of hip operations—from 60 to 197—in knee operations—from 16 to 90—and in cataracts of 216 to 685. Is he aware that when the hospital becomes a trust it will make even more rapid progress being run by local people for local people?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that excellent report to my attention. I think that patients can see that the reforms are working—there are better clinic hours, with evening and out-of-hours clinics, and improvements in service and the patients' environment. Such improvements are taking place in Lancaster and elsewhere, and I have no doubt that they will continue to take place everywhere.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to join me in expressing joy at the release of Terry Waite and Tom Sutherland from their long and terrible captivity? May I also express—as I am sure he will —boundless admiration for the great courage and inner strength shown by the two men and all the other released hostages. Those qualities were brilliantly manifested yet again in the remarkable speech by Terry Waite at RAF Lyneham at lunchtime today. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking everyone, including the service given by the British Government, who have worked and still work to secure the release of hostages? I particularly thank the United Nations Secretary-General and his envoy, Mr. Picco. Does the Prime Minister agree that the statement by Terry Waite's captors that they now recognise that they did wrong and that what they did has served no useful purpose should be understood by all those who engage in the vile practice of taking hostages, anywhere?

I agree unreservedly with the right hon. Gentleman's comments and believe that they will be echoed throughout the country. This morning I spoke briefly to Terry Waite while he was on board the aircraft returning home and was able to express the delight that I and the whole country felt at his safe return and at Mr. Sutherland's release. We owe a great deal to the United Nations Secretary-General and to Mr. Picco who have worked tirelessly with others to secure the release of the hostages. In welcoming the release of Mr. Waite and Mr. Sutherland, may I express the hope that none of us forget that there are still more hostages whom we wish to see speedily returned to their homes. The developments that we have seen vindicate the policy of not doing deals with hostage takers. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view about the remarks by the hostage takers. Let us hope that the lesson has been learnt and that never again shall we see this vile practice recur.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

During his busy day, will my right hon. Friend take time to look at the Harris poll in last Sunday's issue of The Observer which clearly showed that two thirds of the people of this country, including 60 per cent. of Labour voters, support my right hon. Friend's policy of reducing the standard rate of tax from 25p to 20p in the pound? Is it not clear that at the next general election the public will face a clear choice between lower personal taxes under a Conservative Government or swingeing increased taxes under Labour?

My hon. Friend certainly puts the point crisply, and I entirely agree with him. Conservatives believe that people should be left with as much as possible of their own money to spend in their own interests, in the clear belief that they will spend it better in their interests than any Government will do for them. We leave it to the Opposition to advocate higher taxes. That is not our view.

Is the Prime Minister aware that under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, to which this country is a signatory, all Governments are obliged to provide asylum to those fleeing from serious human rights violations? Given that the Asylum Bill will deny genuine asylum seekers entry to this country,—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Yes it will, and the few who slip through the net will be denied legal aid to argue their case. Will the Prime Minister tell us how his Government will meet their obligations under the convention?

The Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not deter genuine asylum seekers. It will prevent the misuse of asylum procedures while protecting the position of genuine refugees. It seeks to accelerate decision making, and it will find strong support in the House and in the country.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not agree to binding minimum rates of income tax in Europe, which have been advocated by the Socialist Confederation in Europe and are supported by the Labour party in this country?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. If the Labour party has signed European documents to that effect, I hope that it will have the courtesy to place them in the Library so that we may all see them. It is clearly Labour's vision to have high tax rates, but it is the hope of the people of this country to have the lowest possible tax rates, and that is what we shall offer.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the draft proposals on economic and monetary union and on political union involve far-reaching constitutional change to our present arrangements? If he does, why does he reject the sovereignty of the British people in taking the final decision on the matter in a post-legislative referendum?

Because we are a parliamentary democracy.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of the popular music industry and its contribution to overseas earnings? Would he echo the view of music lovers everywhere about the release of a certain rap record which shows the statesmanlike approach of the Leader of the Opposition?

My hon. Friend's suggestion is tempting, but I have not heard the record and I am not sure whether it ought to be released.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1962, when he packed up work to look after his parents, he received unemployment benefit under the terms of the legislation introduced by the Labour Government of 1945–50? Is he aware that anyone placed in that predicament today, and who decided to go on the dole so as to look after his sick parents, would not receive a single penny piece? Who is the person responsible for that change? It is none other than the Prime Minister who, as Minister for Social Security, introduced measures to prevent people from receiving benefit in those circumstances. Coming from a man who claims to be in favour of the classless society, is that not hypocrisy?

The hon. Gentleman should, for once, get his facts straight and stick to them. I remind him that great improvements have been made not only in the amount of assistance that is available to people who are unemployed, but in the amount of assistance to ensure that people receive training so that they can get back into work. When the last Labour Government left office—[Interruption]—there were 6,000 training jobs. There are now 350,000.

rose—

Order. Let us settle down.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in sharp contrast to the open-door policy apparently espoused by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his party, the measures contained in the Asylum Bill will be fair and of great benefit to genuine asylum seekers?

Yes, I am happy to confirm that. It is necessary to provide a proper asylum law to make sure that genuine refugees can be dealt with speedily and adequately. Without the Asylum Bill, that would no longer be the case.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Why is it that £22·50 is spent on advertising and publicity for each expatriate voter who chooses to record his vote in this country, while only one tenth of a penny is spent in the United Kingdom encouraging people to vote? Is this one of the reasons why 1 million people are missing off the electoral register? What does the Prime Minister intend to do between now and a general election to put those 1 million people back on the register?

Both at home and abroad, the intention is to ensure that the people who are entitled to vote are aware of that fact. The hon. Gentleman should ask himself why he is so keen to see people who are entitled to vote not able to do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noted the vote of parents in Gravesham, in the case of one school by a margin of nine to one, to take control over the management of their schools through grant-maintained status? Has he also noted the Labour party's policy proposal to reverse the decision of the parents and to claw back the education funds concerned to a centralised bureaucracy?

There is nothing surprising in the Labour party's policies on that. It dislikes choice and parents having authority and power. We are determined to give both choice and power back to parents and that is why more schools are becoming grant maintained. After the general election, an avalanche of schools will seek to become grant maintained.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

In what circumstances would the Prime Minister contemplate using nuclear weapons?

The Government's position has always been clear—nuclear weapons are there as a deterrent. The difference between our position and that of the Labour party is that people accept that we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons and know that Labour Members would not be, so they would not have a deterrent. That is why the Opposition's defence policy is incredible.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction of the inflation rate to 3·7 per cent. is extremely good news for business, for householders and for those on a fixed income, and will he continue the policy of reducing the inflation rate?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that that is our intention. The present inflation rate is, of course, precisely one half of the inflation rate when it was at its very lowest—just briefly under the previous Labour Government.

This nation has been a nation of volunteers. How can we encourage volunteering if we cut community volunteering and the numbers engaged in the territorial volunteer reserves?

We are examining and consulting on the particular position of the Territorial Army. As for volunteering generally, the hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a vast increase in volunteering in the whole range of voluntary services in the last decade. That has been a continuing trend. I welcome that and we encourage it.

With permission, I will put together the next eight motions on the Order Paper.