To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on low flying; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has recently received a number of representations from hon. Members and the general public on matters relating to military low-flying training.

May I add to those representations the ones that haw been made to me locally by committees responsible for organising the summer common riding festivals in the central Borders and Scotland? It does not take much imagination to understand the effect of a Tornado flying at 250 knots and at 250 ft, on a cavalcade of 200 horses on top of the Border hills. Will the Minister consider increasing the current exclusion zones of 1 nautical mile to about 5 nautical miles in order to give those cavalcades some protection?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. I have considered the point carefully. As he knows, we are always ready to give an avoidance of 1 mile on each side of the tracks used by these riders. The problem is that there are 75 ridings a year and to give a wider berth would concentrate our low flying over other parts of the countryside to the detriment of the inhabitants there. We have had few complaints from those taking part in the ridings and nearly half the ridings take place at weekends when there is little low flying. I do not believe that the case has been made for a change in our policy.

Do my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that if we are to have an effective Royal Air Force, it is essential that our pilots are given the best possible training, including training in operating at below the level of enemy radar? Do my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that the magnificent and heroic performance of our pilots in the Gulf thoroughly vindicates the training programme that we have had up to now? Will they accept that in Lincolnshire, where we have more RAF stations than any other part of the country, there is wide appreciation of those facts?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the realistic way in which he faces the problem. In Lincolnshire we are proud of the role of the RAF and its life in our county. It might be helpful to know that it is planned that low flying by jets will decline by about 30 per cent. over the next three years. In the worst-affected areas, such as the Lake District, the Borders and Wales, we are establishing community relations officers to provide a closer link with local people.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to place the order for the fourth Trident submarine.

The Trident programme continues on time towards its in-service date at an estimated final cost of £10,518 million. This marks a further small reduction against last year's estimate and an overall real reduction of £3 billion against the original 1982 forecast.

We plan to place the order for the fourth Trident submarine with VSEL at Barrow as soon as contract negotiations have been satisfactorily completed.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the debate on Trident in Scotland is not on whether we should have three or four boats or on the number of warheads per missile but on whether we should proceed with expenditure which, over its lifetime, could amount to £23,000 million on a useless, dangerous military white elephant? Does the Secretary of State accept that there has not been, is not and will not be a majority in Scotland for the Trident missile system and that, ultimately, its deployment will depend on the consent not of the Westminster Parliament but of the Scottish people, and it will not be forthcoming?

I have not met many Scottish people who wish to be left exposed to the nuclear blackmail that could come from the huge nuclear arsenal which will remain for many years on the continent and in Russia. The Scottish people whom I meet who work in the shipyards at Yarrow take pride in building ships for the Royal Navy whose orders would presumably be lost to them if they had the pleasure of being represented by an SNP policy. I do not think that the 23,000 people presently involved in the Trident programme think that their efforts are wasted. They are proud of their contribution to the essential safeguarding of our country.

What does the Secretary of State believe to be the Russian assessment of our Trident programme and, indeed, their assessment of British public opinion on the subject?

The whole world had the opportunity of hearing on television what President Yeltsin thought. He said that the number of nuclear weapons at the disposal of the United Kingdom was not comparable with theirs and that, therefore, the matter was not worth discussion. The Opposition have complained for years that our determination to maintain an essential minimum safeguard for our country with a nuclear deterrent was somehow an obstacle to the necessary task of reducing the overblown nuclear arsenals of the super-powers, but President Yeltsin dealt with their arguments in one wholly destructive answer.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that fully two thirds of the costs of Trident have already been spent or contractually committed by the present Government? Will he further confirm that the consequences of the Scottish National party's policies would be to deprive many hundreds of people of their employment at Rosyth and on the Clyde while still leaving Scotland at risk from the consequences of a nuclear attack on Barrow or on the north of England? We would have all the risk but none of the advantages.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support which I take to be absolutely unequivocal support for the Trident programme. I wish I thought that his colleagues were beginning to share that idea—perhaps we have an alliance here. Not all the expenditure is committed. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can save money if they do not believe in the nuclear deterrent, and it is high time that they told the country what their priorities are.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the further 600 redundancies announced yesterday in the shipyards in Barrow which will bring to 4,500 the number of jobs lost since "Options for Change" was announced about 18 months ago. Will he therefore take this opportunity to emphasise the employment aspect as well as the strategic importance of the fourth submarine? Will he also note the observations of Barrow Labour party which has described the Opposition's promise to give work equivalent to that involved in a fourth submarine as ignorant and ill-informed?

Clearly, I heard with disappointment the announcement made by VSEL yesterday. I note that 10,400 are presently employed. It is a disappointment that there are to be 600 redundancies, but there is a continuing significant level of employment in defence at Barrow which is dependent on it and which has been sustained by the Government's commitment to a strong defence. I weep for Barrow's prospects were there conceivably any change in Government, because the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has said that the Opposition would replace a cancelled fourth boat with equivalent work only to be denounced by his own candidate in Barrow who used the words "ignorant and ill-informed".

Will the Secretary of State explain to the House the confusion that arose yesterday following the Prime Minister's statement on the United Nations meeting? The confusion arose between the subsequent press briefings given by the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Prime Minister's statements about what were likely to be the maximum number of warheads on the Trident programme. Although I recognise that for obvious reasons the Secretary of State will not want to be locked or painted into a figure of 512 as the maximum, which is what it would be, will he tell the House whether, in the light of last week's discussions with President Yeltsin and the changes that have taken place since Christmas, the Government are now considering the minimum deterrent to be somewhat lower than they had previously considered it necessary to be?

The hon. Gentleman knows the situation perfectly well. We have never gone beyond the statement that we will have a maximum of 128 warheads per submarine. That is our position and that is where we remain. We have also made it absolutely clear that we will ensure that our deterrent is effective and absolutely credible, and that it puts real fear into any potential aggressor about the damage that he could suffer if he were to attack this country. That is our position and we have made it absolutely clear that we will do that within the terms of operating a minimum deterrent, which is obviously the sensible way to go.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be totally ignorant of and unable to adjust to President Yeltsin's announcement in which he made it absolutely clear that our determination to maintain a minimum deterrent is no obstruction to the determination that he and President Bush have to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the super-powers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the effect on the reactive capability of United Kingdom defence industries of a reduction in defence expenditure to the Western European Union average.

We have no intention of reducing defence expenditure to the WEU average; we have made no estimate of the implications of such a reduction.

I thank my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that in this very uncertain world, if such a reduction were to take place, it would seriously jeopardise this country's ability to defend itself? That policy would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs in defence industries, including many in my constituency, yet it has been endorsed on no fewer than three occasions by large majorities at the Labour party conference.

Yes, that is right. That policy has been endorsed by majorities of more than 2 million pounds—[Interruption.]—members on each occasion. It is especially interesting that, leaving aside the damage that such a policy would do to the services by wiping out 10 frigates, four submarines and four squadrons of Tornados, there has never been a suggestion in any of the texts that money would be returned to the taxpayer. In every resolution, there has been a reference to making the money available for other "social and economic priorities", thus confirming that the Labour party is the party of high taxation. Labour regards reducing taxes and defending ourselves as equally sinful.

It is a bit hypocritical both for the questioner and for the Minister, who is a representative of the Government of unemployment, to criticise potential job losses under a Labour Government. The Secretary of State has presided over the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the defence industry in recent years. Since June 1990—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Since June 1990, 74,000 jobs have been lost in the defence industry. Since the Prime Minister came to power, 1,000 jobs have been lost each month. Some 4,500 jobs have been lost in Barrow. What a bunch of hypocritical mealy-mouthed people! When will the Minister stop the cuts in the defence industry or at least set up a defence diversification agency to help people such as those in Barrow who will be put out of work?

It is always interesting to note that the moment one reminds Labour Members of their party's commitment to high taxation, they lose control of the argument completely and deliver tirades along the lines of that to which the hon. Gentleman has just subjected the House. We regret very much the fact that there have been job losses in the defence industry—of course—and the figure is 25,000—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will not even listen to the reply to his argument it is his loss. The total losses have been of the order of 25,000, but the fact remains that there are still more than 140,000 people directly involved in the defence industry and more than 120,000 indirectly involved. Every one of those workers knows exactly what his likely fate will be should the Labour party ever return to power.

Is not it a strong strategic interest of the United Kingdom to maintain an effective and comprehensive defence industrial base, in case international circumstances change? In that regard, does my right hon. Friend support the WEU proposal of a European surveillance satellite system to engender confidence and ensure that arms control measures are adhered to?

It will be increasingly important to ensure that all surveillance is comprehensive and very widely directed. In no sector is that more important than in the field of nuclear proliferation. All countries that are committed to non-proliferation and all the signatories to the treaty must be prepared both for greater resources to go into the inspection process and to submit to greater surveillance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to encourage non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The greatest immediate risk of proliferation follows the disintegration of the Soviet Union with its massive nuclear stockpile and large number of nuclear scientists. We are actively involved in discussion with all the former Soviet republics where nuclear weapons are at present located—particularly with Russia. We are also giving full support to the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, for the elimination of the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he want the British public to realise that 128 warheads per submarine equals 512 warheads for four submarines, and that that equates to 2,560 Hiroshimas? Even if he seeks to deploy fewer warheads per boat than the maximum possible, why should not other countries follow his example and say that that is also their ideal of a minimum deterrent? Does non-proliferation apply to everyone else but not to us?

The hon. Lady seems quite unaware of the fact that, not long ago, I announced from the Dispatch Box what is effectively a halving of our sub-strategic nuclear weapons. NATO will now restrict itself to only one nuclear system, as opposed to the Soviet Union—or Russia now—with three, and we in NATO can point to the fact that we will soon have about one tenth the number of nuclear warheads that we had 10 years ago. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise the changes that have taken place. I remind her that, following President Yeltsin's recent visit and the welcome changes in connection with what is a hugely large arsenal of nuclear weapons, the top priority of proliferation at present is to ensure that we take action in the ways that I described in my answer. The fact that the hon. Lady rose with a prepared supplementary, ignoring the significance of the massive problems of the time, does her little credit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if one ignores what is happening in the former USSR, there are other countries in the world that are potential aggressors and which either have nuclear capacity or may be near to acquiring it? Would not it be the height of folly to give away our own independent nuclear deterrent while any potential aggressor has the ability to strike at us?

I entirely agree. I was asked about proliferation. We have to face the fact that there is a bigger risk of nuclear proliferation at present than the world has ever known. As a result, while the right approach is to take the most positive steps that we can to help to deal with that problem, we have a duty to our own people also to ensure that we maintain that elementary, basic, minimum safeguard of our own nuclear deterrent. Anybody who dreamt of surrendering that basic safeguard at this time would be doing the gravest disservice to current and possibly to future generations in Britain.

May I welcome the attempts that the Government are making, in conjunction with the Russians and the Confederation of Independent States, to reduce and dismantle the nuclear weapons arsenals? That is a most welcome and urgent step. In the current discussions about the size of the nuclear arsenal, is the Secretary of State still committed to bringing on stream another replacement for the WE177 free-fall bomb? Although that may not be against a literal interpretation of the wording of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, would not such a move be a gross affront to the potential proliferators who are reconsidering the need to indulge in the acquisition of nuclear weapons? Would it not be better for the country and for the nuclear proliferation process for the Government to abandon their next generation of air-launched cruise missiles?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question ignored the fact that we are talking about NATO policy. In fact, we are talking about a proposed change in NATO policy, that is what matters—not about a unilateral decision by the Government—which was agreed at the London NATO summit. We are considering the options at the moment, and I have nothing to add to that.

Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that it is absolutely necessary for us to have a minimum deterrent so that the people of the United Kingdom are safe? In terms of that deterrent, is it not right that when a submarine is cruising anywhere in the world's oceans, any potential aggressor who attacks the United Kingdom will stand the risk of unacceptable and devastating retaliation from us?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that is precisely the point. Indeed, that is precisely the point which was so clearly recognised by President Yeltsin. We have criticised the building-up of such a huge nuclear arsenal, but my hon. Friend may have noticed that President Yeltsin is talking of reducing the number of warheads to 2,500, which he regards as reducing to a deterrent. We believe that it is right to have a minimum deterrent so that no potential aggressor can think that this country could be attacked and that they could be unaffected by any retaliation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to consult local authorities on housing requirements for ex-service personnel.

In consultation with the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office, which are represented on MOD's housing task force, my Department has recently been in contact with all local authorities, seeking information on their arrangements for the provision of housing for ex-service personnel.

The Minister has said that his Department has contacted the local authorities, but when will the Government accept that the local authorities have the strategy and the enabling powers to make provision for housing, especially for the homeless and perhaps for some of the 40,000 personnel who will be leaving the armed forces in the near future? Why is the task force in consultation with the Housing Corporation but refusing to consult the local authorities which have that power? Is it not a fact that the Government still have such a bigoted bias against local authorities that they will even put at risk the future housing of our ex-service families?

Let me first put the hon. Gentleman right about the figure of 40,000—40,000 is the number that we have put on the reduction of personnel in the Army, but much of that reduction will be achieved by natural wastage. I remind the hon. Gentleman that about 30,000 people leave the armed forces every year anyway. We are expecting in excess of 10,000 redundancies, which will be spread over three years. We must put those numbers in perspective.

On the housing task force, we feel that the representatives of the Department of the Environment are well aware of the position of the local authorities in relation to housing. Their representations have been valuable. In addition, Lady Anson, the chairman of the Association of District Councils, has been in touch with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his contact with the Housing Corporation must be the best way forward and can be usefully developed? Will he further accept that service men are looking for the opportunity to obtain a rung on the ownership ladder and that the Housing Corporation and its satellite housing associations can most assuredly provide that? Is my right hon. Friend confident that nationwide assistance will be available to enable those excellent people to be rehabilitated in our community?

Yes. We are in touch on that. The question arises whether some of our married quarters may be sold to housing associations who will give priority to service men. Many different options are being considered. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that we sent out a questionnaire to 5,293 people who volunteered for redundancy and 76 per cent. of them returned it. Of those people who had volunteered for redundancy, 49 per cent. already owned their own homes and another 34 per cent. intended to buy. Therefore, the majority of those who are to be made redundant will either have their own homes or will buy them shortly after.

When the Minister next talks to the local authorities about this issue, will he point out that many of them no longer give rehousing priority to ex-service personnel, but expect them to go through the normal homeless families procedures? Does he agree that that is a pretty poor way in which to treat people who have given their lives to the service of their country?

I absolutely accept everything that the hon. Gentleman says. One of our concerns is that our ex-service men should not be in temporary accommodation. That is why we are considering the use of our married quarters to ensure that that does not happen.

Will my right hon. Friend consider further the approach that I have made to the Secretary of State that vacant married quarters in civilian areas around army camps should be co-ordinated into my right hon. Friend's scheme? If they are to remain empty at any particular time short-held leases could be used so that the barracks could be used for local housing rather than stay vacant.

Yes, this has always been a problem, but it has become worse recently, I am afraid, because of the people who have been made redundant and who have come back from Germany. The stocks of empty houses may be larger at this time. I take that point and we are keeping in close contact with local authorities.

Does the Minister accept that there is a real need and opportunity for bold and radical measures? Local housing authorities have been starved of cash for a number of years by the Government. However, local authorities and the Ministry of Defence have empty sub-standard housing on their books. Will the Minister release MOD votes to allow local authorities, in collaboration with the MOD, to bring empty housing owned by the local authorities and the MOD up to acceptable standards and then transfer it to local authority control for the express purpose of providing homes to ex-service personnel? Or will this Government's ideological opposition to council housing prevent them from doing that?

Most of what is being done by my Department—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] It is a blank piece of paper. Most of that work is carried out in conjunction with housing asociations and is financed by the Housing Corporation. On the whole, we would prefer to dispose of blocks of married quarters to housing associations rather than to local authorities. We do not exclude that possibility, but we find that when we talk to local authorities that they do not have the money to buy married quarters in the first place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further consultations he has had regarding "Options for Change", in the light of the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

We have set out our plans in "Britain's Defence for the 90s" and we are proceeding to implement those over the next four years. I do not propose future reductions in the light of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and given the continuing instability in Europe and elsewhere.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House, nevertheless, that the validity of the arguments behind "Options for Change" will be kept under constant review, not least because of the disintegration of the Warsaw pact, followed by the emergence of new power structures within the Soviet Union?

I appreciate that concern. One of the bases that underpinned "Options for Change" was the disintegration of the Warsaw pact, the establishment of independence in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and other former allies, the reunification of Germany and the disappearance of East Germany. We did not anticipate the rapid disintegration of the Soviet Union. There are some who advocate that, now that that has happened, the world is somehow a safer place. We do not believe that that is correct. We believe that the world is passing through a period of considerable instability and therefore we do not propose further reductions in our defence forces.

In any further consideration of "Options for Change" will the Minister take into account lessons from the Gulf war such as heavy lift, better intelligence especially on targeting, mine countermeasures, which may have inhibited an amphibious operation, and, above all, fire from friendly forces, which underlines the need for the IFF—identification, friend or foe—system which has so far eluded NATO?

I am glad to confirm that these lessons have been learnt from our consideration of the Gulf conflict. They have been discussed by both NATO and the Western European Union. Heavy lift and enhanced intelligence capability are two very specific matters that have been considered in those forums.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will visit factories in north Devon which have been involved in defence contracts and seek to maintain this link.

I should be very happy to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his brisk but satisfactory reply. Will he please bear in mind the fact that it is essential that, where possible, we buy from British manufacturers across the country? May I commend to him a visit to north Devon and ask him to remember Coutant's of Ilfracombe and firms like High Temperature of South Molton, Hobart's, CQC and others? It is important that we retain these excellent companies even if some of the swords become ploughshares.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. All the firms that he has mentioned contribute to the employment of the 130,000 people who are directly concerned with the defence industry. He did not mention Cray Marine, a firm in his constituency that provides the Torpedo-handling system for the type 23s. That firm will have welcomed the recent announcement of an order for a further three of these ships.

When the Minister visits north Devon will he consider the matter of British equipment and pay a visit to RAF Chivenor, which is waiting for the SAR Westland helicopters that have been on order for two years? The Minister promised that this order would be taken care of shortly after the new year. Surely that time has arrived. The Minister should remember that Westland will hold its annual general meeting on 13 February. An order announced now would not only fulfil the SAR requirements but also be very welcome to Westland.

I am glad to confirm that an announcement about this order will be made shortly. Important though the right hon. Gentleman is, he is not yet in a position to issue invitations to visit Royal Air Force stations.

If my right hon. Friend is going on a tour I hope that he will not forget our mutual home territory on Plymouth, which is very anxious indeed to maintain close links with the armed services. It has provided excellent service in the past, and wishes to do so in the future.

I visit Plymouth every weekend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are currently any contracts with the Atomic Energy Authority for research into the fabrication of weapons components using plutonium; and whether any such work has been carried out at Harwell.

There are no contracts with the AEA for research into the fabrication of weapons components using plutonium. We do place contracts with AEA, which exploits its expertise in a range of matters, including plutonium handling.

Why is it that £40 million is being spent on the 220 building at Harwell? Does this have something to do with the transfer of work on Trident warheads from Aldermaston, which is not big enough? Is not the cry of every potential bomb-making third-world country that its nuclear work is entirely civil, even though it is, in fact, for defence purposes? It is time Britain gave a lead by stopping its nuclear proliferation.

The hon. Gentleman excites himself without cause. Most of the work that is done at Harwell is for the civilian sector. Indeed, the refurbishment of the 220 building results from AEA's commercial considerations and is not necessitated by Ministry of Defence contracts. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the Ministry is the one that I have just given. Far more interesting is whether the hon. Gentleman and his Back-Bench colleagues support Labour's new nuclear defence policy—so far as anyone can understand it.

My hon. Friend will be aware of reports coming out of Russia of grave concern about the maintenance and decommissioning of the vast ex-Soviet nuclear stockpile. Is it possible for us to provide facilities, skills and help from the Atomic Energy Authority to help them with that difficult problem?

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Safety is always paramount to us in those matters and we are in discussion with them to see how best we can help.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the future strength of the Territorial Army in Scotland.

A number of representations have been received.

Can the Minister confirm that they included representations to ensure that any rundown in the Territorial Army in Scotland will not mean there being insufficient units in Scotland, to the point at which the TA will lose the goodwill of the scattered communities, particularly in the highlands and islands, in terms of recruitment? Did he also receive representations about 15 Parachute regiment to the effect that it should be allowed to continue at its five locations in Scotland? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that sufficient resources will be made available to ensure that full establishment is maintained at each of those locations for men and resources, for training and administration?

I am always fascinated to hear Liberals going on about resources being made available for defence, when they are committed to cutting them by 50 per cent. by the end of the century. I am never sure how their inquiries fit in with that commitment.

The reduction in Scotland will be 13 per cent. compared with a United Kingdom average of 17 per cent. So Scotland is being treated well under the measures.

The geographical spread will be very much a question of how the highland and lowland TAVRAs—the Territorial Army volunteer reserve associations—decide to allocate their resources. My hon. Friend has made it clear that no willing volunteer will be turned away and that anybody who wants to continue to serve with the TA will be able to do so, maybe not with the unit in which he is now serving, but with another unit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland's contribution to the armed forces, including the TA, far exceeds its proportion of less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population? That has been recognised by the Government. That is why Scots who are interested in military and other matters will always be best served by a Conservative Government.

That is absolutely right. It is amazing what we hear from Opposition Members, when they intend to cut defence expenditure. The effect that that would have on Scottish defence would be devastating in terms of procurement and the employment of people in the armed forces.

Is it not a fact that on 3 July last year the Minister of State told my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that the recruitment figures for individual battalions in Scotland would not be released on the ground of security, yet when it suited the Secretary of State's purpose, he was prepared to release figures showing 67 per cent. recruitment to 15 Parachute regiment? Can he therefore confirm that either the Secretary of State has breached the security rules or that the excuse of national security has been used merely to cover the fact that the Government made the decisions on political rather than on military grounds? Is that not why there is so much concern in Scotland among supporters of the regiment? Is he aware that there will be a wide welcome for my assurance that an incoming Labour Government will review each and every one of these decisions to ensure that the size and structure of the regiments in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom reflect our military needs, and not the political expediency of the Tory party?

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a review of defence by an incoming Labour Government, should we happen to have such an Administration, would mean more money being spent on defence, I am a Dutchman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what offer of assistance he has given to the member states of the former Soviet Union to assist in establishing defence hot-lines.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed with President Yeltsin in London last week that a secure direct telephone link between No. 10 and the Kremlin should be established. I also discussed with Marshal Shaposhnikov the ways in which we could establish clearer links between us and our staffs. I hope to make a further announcement about that very shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that unambiguous communication is just as important now as it was during the cold war, and perhaps even more important? Will he also accept that the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union may from time to time have some apprehension, and that there may be need to give them reassurance?

That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited each of the nuclear republics of the former Soviet Union. With regard to the need for direct and close contact, I do not think that we could have had a clearer example of that than the visit of President Yeltsin and the very straight talking between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the president. In one very short and clear comment, President Yeltsin demolised all the arguments of the Labour party that somehow our deterrent is an obstacle to the reduction of the nuclear arms of the super-powers.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

:) 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.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to suggest that there is one kind of school that can cater for the needs of all kinds of pupils is an example of the naive theorising that has caused so many problems in education, which we are seeking to address today? Will he continue to press for diversity in education through grant-maintained schools, through city technology colleges and through local management of schools responsive to parents' wishes?

I agree with the premise underlying my hon. Friend's question. We will certainly continue to encourage diversity through grant-maintained schools, CTCs and locally managed schools, all of which give greater opportunity and choice to parents and pupils. We will continue to offer that choice.

At the time when the Prime Minister said that if his policies

"were not hurting, they were not working,"

did he realise that those policies would cause the longest recession since the 1930s?

We have taken action to ensure that we come out of this recession in a way that will ensure sustained recovery. As the Governor of the Bank of England said only yesterday,

"the conditions are now in place to underpin a … sustained recovery."

Having caused the longest recession since the 1930s, does the Prime Minister agree with the words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said last month:

"the policy would not have been different even if we had known the outcome."?

Caused the recession?—Did we cause it in the United States, in Sweden, in Japan, in Australia, in New Zealand? If the right hon. Gentleman believes all that, he is certainly not capable of leading his party, let alone this country.

There is no question of doubt that this Government caused the recession in this country. Since the Prime Minister made the statement that I quoted, nearly 1 million jobs have been lost, there have been over 100,000 repossessions and 80,000 businesses have been lost, in those two years. This Government caused the recession, they continued the recession, and now they have not got a clue how to get out of the recession.

What the right hon. Gentleman has to say—[Interruption.]

Order.

What the right hon. Gentleman has to say is economic illiteracy. If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about recovery, what does he think that higher taxes would do to it? What does he think that his jobs tax would do to it? What does he think that his investment tax would do to it? What does he think that his minimum wage would do to it? The policies which the right hon. Gentleman pursues would mean perpetual recession for this country.—[Interruption.]

Order. Will hon. Members please settle down?

To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of Germany; and what issues he intends to discuss with him.

Chancellor Kohl and I are in frequent contact by telephone to discuss matters of mutual interest. I expect to meet him again soon, but I have no immediate plans to do so.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the extent to which the German economy has suffered from the worldwide slowdown and the fact that German output has decreased during the past two months for which figures are available? Does not that conclusively show that economic difficulties are not confined to the United Kingdom, as the Opposition try to claim?

My hon. Friend's question is more apposite than he might have imagined. He is entirely right. I have noticed that fact, even if the Opposition have not. Again, the Governor of the Bank of England noted yesterday that the recession has proved unexpectedly persistent in north America and that in continental Europe, Japan and elsewhere economic activity has slowed and unemployment has begun to rise. Only the Opposition adopt their typical stance. They ignore other countries' difficulties and concentrate solely on those in this country, to the damage of our interests.

After the two opt-outs negotiated by the Prime Minister at Maastricht, does Chancellor Kohl still think that the Prime Minister is a good European?

The hon. Gentleman had better ask Chancellor Kohl that question. I have enjoyed the closest possible co-operation with Chancellor Kohl in the past year and I intend to continue to do so in the same capacity in years to come.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

The massive growth at Manchester airport since the Government have come to power—a 1,100 per cent. increase in fixed assets—has given a tremendous boost to the economy and pride of the north-west. Indeed, the north-south divide has now ceased to exist as an issue. When my right hon. Friend next has a free Saturday, will he fly up to Manchester, look at what has been achieved by the airport, and then pop over to Old Trafford to watch a first-class football side in action? It will win the first division championship, just as my right hon. Friend will certainly win the next general election.

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not respond to one part of his question. Manchester airport, however, is a success story. It has benefited especially from the growth in the liberalisation of air services and, as a result, three times as many passengers now use the airport as when the Government came to office. That is a direct result of liberalisation introduced by the Government. The concept of a north-south divide was always too simplistic and sweeping. Many areas of prosperity and some of difficulty exist in each and every part of this country—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us have less barracking.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency of Leyton, unemployment has risen by 84 per cent. in the past 18 months? As last night the Governor of the Bank of England backtracked over the duration of the slump, will the Prime Minister now institute an urgent programme of recovery? Failing that, will he explain to my unemployed constituents why the Government consider them a "price worth paying"?

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening a few moments ago when I quoted directly the Governor of the Bank of England saying that the conditions necessary to underpin a sustained recovery are now in place.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a review is to be undertaken of the use by the security and intelligence agencies of informants and other sources? When he receives that final report, will he bear in mind the fact that the security intelligence agencies rely on the use of informants, and the intelligence that they receive will never be any good unless a measure of protection can be granted to those sources?

We do, of course, constantly keep these matters under review and I believe that it is important that we continue to do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that since the Government came into office in 1979 nearly 2·5 million full-time jobs in manufacturing have been lost, 34 jobs for every hour this wretched Government have been in office? In view of the devastation, the unemployment and the misery caused to our people, is it any wonder that the Prime Minister is so reluctant to hold the general election?

The hon. Gentleman is joining the Opposition trend of seeking to talk down what manufacturing and other industries are doing. He should remember that export volumes of manufactured goods grew faster than in the United States throughout the 1980s, that manufacturing grew faster than in France or Italy during the 1980s, and that Britain exports a larger proportion of its national product than Japan, a point recognised by even the Scottish National party.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending congratulations to a Yorkshire manufacturing company, Spring Ram plc, which at the end of the month will open two new factories in my constituency, creating 400 new jobs, which is at present building two new factories in Barnsley which will create 400 new jobs, and which has a plan to create 1,100 new jobs in Bradford over the next four years?

I am delighted to send my congratulations to my hon. Friend's constituents. There are, of course, many other companies up and down the country which are similarly investing and growing, and laying the foundation for prosperity in the 1990s.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

Can the Prime Minister tell the House how he squares his vision of a classless Britain with the experience of a constituent of mine from Fulwood, who was told last May that she needed a hip replacement but that she would have to wait 14 months for the operation under the national health service, and who was told that she could have had the operation immediately had she been able to cough up £4,300?

There were no hip replacements available just a few years ago. It is now a relatively routine operation available in the national health service. Hip replacements are becoming more widely available month after month. That is the direction in which we must go to provide the best health service, the best opportunities and the best element of the classless society that I have talked about.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing that business needs is for business rates to be brought back under the control of uncapped, loony Labour authorities who will send rates sky rocketing, as they did during the early 1980s? Will he give the House a pledge that such a crazy proposal will never be included in a manifesto issued by the Conservative party?

I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. It is well known to every hon. Member that under the old system, councils could put up rates by more than the rate of inflation. They did and, among other evils, they forced many jobs out of inner city areas by doing so. Those who doubt that might remember the rate rise of Labour-controlled Ealing council of 57 per cent. in 1987. They might also recollect the wriggling of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on television the other day on precisely that problem. It would be a problem, he said. It would be a problem not just for the Labour party but for business men up and down the country.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

Since the Government have supported independence in Russia, Lithuania and other parts of the world, when the people of Scotland democratically and peacefully vote for independence, what will the Government say to them?

This Union has served both Scotland and England well, and I would not wish to see it undermined. The proposals of the Labour party, the Liberal Democratic party and the Scottish National party would undermine that relationship that has served us so well in the Union. Devolution is not just a matter for Scotland; it is a matter for the whole United Kingdom. If an Assembly were given tax-raising powers, how would that fit in with the other fiscal arrangements? What would the increased taxation do to prosperity in Scotland? The hon. Gentleman should put a fair proposal before the Scottish people, not the half-baked one that he has made.

Will my right hon. Friend—[interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet asked a question of the Prime Minister.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue as the party of denationalisation, and confirm to the electorate of York that the Conservative party will not take away the shares of those who have invested in Northern Electric, British Telecom and other such denationalised companies?

I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. The denationalisation programme has been good not only for the consumer, but for share owning and the improvement of both investment and wealth in this country. We believe in those propositions and we shall continue to support them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 January.

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

I am sure that the Prime Minister will have enjoyed reading the Western Mail last Saturday, where he will have seen the results of a telephone survey showing that the people of Wales now support the setting up of a Welsh Parliament by a margin of four to one. When will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the aspirations of the Welsh and Scottish people cannot be sidelined for ever, and when will Parliament act?

I seem to recall that there was a referendum once before on devolution in Wales when there appeared to be a majority in favour. But the reality was that the referendum showed that there was no majority, and the people of Wales recognised that it would be in the best interests of their country and the United Kingdom to sustain the present arrangements.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on matters appertaining to the rule of law, the primacy of the police and confidence in the security forces in Northern Ireland? You will recall, Mr. Speaker—

Order. That matter is for the Government, not me.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that at Question Time last Thursday the Government were twice asked to make a statement on the subject at the conclusion of the Nelson trial. I had privately written to the Secretary of State about that. The matters related to the honesty and integrity of the British Army, connivance in terrorist offences, the role of the police and security forces, and plea bargaining to prevent full public scrutiny of the issues in the House and before the British public.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to seek some way to force, make, persuade or otherwise cajole the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has responsibility for such matters to make a statement to the House?

I have received no request for a statement, but the hon. Gentleman's point of order will have been heard by those Ministers with responsibility for such matters.