To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current position of the Eurofighter 2000 project.

Progress on the Eurofighter project is generally satisfactory. The development phase is proceeding in line with the agreement reached with our partners last December and we expect the first flight later this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not have the Eurofighter that will severely restrict our defence capability and it will be a disaster for British industry and British jobs? Does he welcome the more positive approach being shown by German Defence Ministers?

I certainly subscribe to all the views expressed by my hon. Friend. We need Eurofighter for our future defence capability. We can certainly benefit from the ߞ approximately—28,000 jobs that it will create in our defence industries when the production phase comes into account. Three hundred companies will have contract work under the Eurofighter contract, including one, Cossor Electronics, in my hon. Friend's constituency. I welcome the highly positive and co-operative approach now being shown by the German Government.

In the Gulf debate on 21 January this year, the Secretary of State acknowledged the cross-party support that there had been for the Eurofighter 2000 project. He said, however, that despite the importance of Eurofighter it had to be affordable. Why, then, have the Government allowed the costs of the fighter to increase by 50 per cent., from £21 billion to £31 billion? Will that affect the number of aircraft that will be ordered for the RAF? Will it affect the aircraft's specifications?

Finally, Eurofighter was due to make its maiden flight in 1991. It is now unlikely to fly before the autumn. Why?

I certainly acknowledge the good-cross party support that we have received from the Opposition—I hope that it is not being undermined today by the hon. Gentleman's comments.

I urge the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads about prices, even in the most eminent newspapers. He should remember Evelyn Waugh's definition of a newspaper library—that compendium of other journalists' mistakes which newspapers have the audacity to call a library. The report of 50 per cent. price increases did not include an allowance for inflation. The real cost increase in the programme compared with the 1988 baseline is under 10 per cent., not 50 per cent., as was reported without allowing for inflation. The increase is unwelcome, but not unusual for a project of this size and complexity. I can confirm that the RAF still intends to order about 250 aircraft.

Will my hon. Friend not be dismayed by the siren voices opposite? The Eurofighter is absolutely essential for the defence of Europe. It is part of a programme that we cannot discontinue. If we did, that would be a return to the old days when we scrapped aircraft when they were just about to fly. That would be quite wrong. Although the costs have risen by 50 per cent. since 1988, we should remember that this has been a time of inflation when costs have had to be adjusted. I ask the team to stand firm on this project.

My hon. Friend speaks for Britain. He remembers that Britain has a proud record of aircraft manufacturing, going back to the great days of the Lancaster and the Spitfire and now continuing with the Eurofighter 2000. That record has been blemished only by the misguided cancellation by the Labour party of the TSR2. I can certainly confirm that we intend to stand by the project.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made as to what percentage of total orders of defence equipment from Kuwait since the Gulf war has been won by United Kingdom firms.

We estimate that in 1991 and 1992 United Kingdom defence-related sales to Kuwait amounted to some 30 per cent. of the value of total orders placed by that country.

Does the Minister agree that the word around the defence industries is that there have been very few firm orders from Kuwait since the Gulf conflict? Does he further agree that the defence sector of our manufacturing base is still vital to this country? lf, in competition with the Americans, we cannot gain more orders from places such as Kuwait, is not it about time that we took steps to enable our defence manufacturing sector to diversify more quickly?

I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman supports the export successes of our defence industries. He will therefore be pleased that I am able to tell the House that the latest figures for the year ended 31 December 1992 show that we managed to achieve export orders of £5·1 billion, which is 20 per cent. of the world market. Both of those are record figures, and ones of which we, and especially the defence industrial base, can be proud.

On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about Kuwait, it is true that only limited definite orders have been placed so far. However, they are good orders and United Kingdom defence successes have included contracts for mine clearance, naval base reconstruction, tactical radios and technical school equipment. The biggest projects of all are the tank project, which went to the Americans, and the Warrior and Piranha contracts, which we hope will come to us. We believe that, on a Government-to-Government basis, there are good grounds for having confidence that the contract will soon be negotiated. The Kuwait Government have announced that they have selected the Warrior and the Piranha for their armoured vehicles, so we are optimistic about those exports.

Will my hon. Friend consider allowing our defence industry to learn the lessons of Kuwait and sell to those countries that are presently barred to it? After all, our NATO and European friends are allowed to sell to those countries.

My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that, as well as our tremendous record of export successes, Britain has a high record for exporting responsibly. We examine all export licences on their merits, taking into account a wide range of considerations including human rights and the stability of the countries concerned. We manage to combine great success with a full sense of responsibility.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent reappraisals have been done of the "Options for Change" programme.

I assure my hon. Friend that we keep the "Options for Change" programme under constant review. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence outlined to the House on 20 April, Official Report, columns 175–76, we have also undertaken a detailed analysis of how resources are taken up in meeting our commitments around the world, and expect to report the results in this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while we are rightly proud of the high standards of our armed forces, the growing and worsening gap between our commitments—some of which were not envisaged two or three years ago—and the resources available is beginning to undermine morale and professional standards? A number of indicators are beginning to show that, such as the over-subscription of those applying for redundancy and the massive shortfall in applications for Sandhurst. In view of the great overstretch in our regular forces, it is not the time to be considering further cuts in our volunteer reserves.

The position on commitments is not just one way. My hon. Friend will have noted the recent announcement that eventually we will be withdrawing the garrison from Belize. That is good news as it was part of the emergency, tour plot that had to be rotated through there. The position remains as it was—if there is a major change in our commitments, we shall reconsider. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did when he restored two battalions under his recent proposals. Therefore, matters are not fixed; we keep the position under review, depending on commitments. We shall be making an announcement on reserve forces by the end of the year.

Will the Minister confirm that "Options for Change" envisaged a submarine strength for the Royal Navy of 16 vessels, but that now the Government are actively trying to dispose of all the type 2–400 diesel submarines to a foreign navy? What strategic assessment underlies that surprising change of policy?

We have made it clear that the hon. Gentleman must wait for the White Paper when it will be made clear what realignments have been made in our force structures and that will include the submarine fleet.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this dangerous and troubled world in which we live, the demands that are likely to be put on our armed forces require him and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence constantly, as he says, to keep under review what is required? Is he aware that on the Conservative Benches there are many who would support him and his colleagues if he had to go to the Treasury for more money?

Yes, there may well be, but we are spending one and a half times the European average. There are good reasons for doing that, and I suspect that, despite the cuts that we are making in the defence budget, we shall continue to spend about one and a half times the European average, as our European partners cut their defence budgets as well. In those circumstances, I am not sure whether, with a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement, it would be right to seek significant increases in the defence budget.

Do not all the random cuts in our defence capabilities about which we have been hearing in recent weeks merely show that the Government have no long-term defence strategy? Instead of playing around with "Options For Change", why does not the Minister listen to the Opposition, the Select Committee on Defence and many experts and set up a full defence review so that we can match our forces to our commitments?

But that is precisely the position that we are in. We can match our forces to our commitments and it is nonsense to pretend otherwise. What we cannot do is to take on endless new commitments without severely overstretching our forces, and that is something of which we must be mindful. I find it quite cool for the Opposition to tell me how insufferable that position is when we know that their party conference passes motions annually saying that our defence budget should be slashed by 25 or 30 per cent. It is about time that they sorted out their own shop before they criticise us.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when preparing his end-year review of the reserve forces their immense value to our country? They are efficient, enthusiastic and highly cost effective —a resource enjoyed by no other country. Never leave them out of account.

I have to take my hon. Friend's view, but I think that she will agree that our reserve forces want roles that are relevant to the future and that is something on which we are working at the moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of (a) admirals in the Royal Navy and (b) capital ships in May 1970, May 1980 and at the present time.

Records are not held for May of each year. Using a definition of capital ships as major warship platforms, including aircraft carriers, commando ships, SSBNs, SSNs, cruisers, destroyers and frigates, there were 92 capital ships and 74 admirals at 1 April 1970, 85 capital ships and 62 admirals in 1980 and 59 capital ships and 42 admirals in 1993.

Those figures are at variance with the figures that l have received from the House of Commons Library which tell me that, for the first time ever, we have more admirals than ships in the Royal Navy. At a time when the Navy is cutting back on exercises by 25 per cent. to save fuel, and when Swan Hunter is being closed, what consideration is being given to the nuclear component? Specifically, will the Minister give the House an assurance that no progress will be made with the tactical air-to-surface missile, which most Opposition Members think would be a complete waste of money?

I am rather confused about what that question was supposed to mean. The comparison between admirals and the number of ships is not a good one, because only three out of the 42 or 60 admirals, or however many we have at the moment, drive ships. The admirals administer the men and organisation of the Royal Navy, which spends some £6 billion per year, for which we need a structure of senior managers.

On the hon. Gentleman's question about TASM, I think that he knows that we are reviewing what we should do about our tactical nuclear system and he will have to wait for an announcement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the great tradition of the Royal Navy to consider crew and family welfare as a priority? Does he acknowledge that many of the crew who man our nuclear deterrent submarine force are home-based in Scotland? On that basis, does he believe that it would be a great advantage to ensure that the maintenance of the Trident fleet remains in Scotland?

Absolutely. Considering the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the Trident facility in Scotland, it is sad that we have not received more thanks from Opposition Members for that enormous investment, which is one of the largest in western Europe.

Does the Minister appreciate that in his confusion about figures today he has revealed that the Government intend to reduce the Royal Navy to fewer than 40 ships? As a result, we shall not need four warship building yards. With that in mind, will he confirm that that was the reason why Swan Hunter was sacrificed? Will he support the Opposition's call for an inquiry into the events surrounding the tender for the helicopter landing ship—a call which was endorsed by the Select Committee on Defence this morning?

That is the most extraordinary assertion. When that contract was awarded it was made clear that there was an enormous gap—in excess of £50 million—between the two bids. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have accepted the Swan Hunter bid, although it would have cost the taxpayer more than £50 million more than the VSEL bid, he should say so. That is an absolutely ridiculous way to carry on. If the Select Committee wishes to investigate and feels that the National Audit Office would like to look at the figures, it is more than welcome to do so and we shall be happy to show them why we reached our conclusion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Spanish Defence Minister to discuss the European fighter aircraft.

My right hon. and learned Friend will meet Senor Vargas at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers next week. That will provide an opportunity to review progress on Eurofighter 2000.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that project represents the right sort of European defence co-operation between us and our EC partners? Does he agree that it is vital to impress on those partners that the project is flexible, state of the art and able to meet all the defence challenges that our armed forces might need to tackle during the coming years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him. I met my opposite number in Spain, Senor Flos Bassols, and the other four partner-Government equivalents a few weeks ago and we concurred with the view that, in the more worrying strategic environment, a first-class aircraft with the capabilities of the Eurofighter is needed for the defence of our country and Europe in the 21st century.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the British garrison in Belize to discuss the future of the garrison.

I plan to visit the British garrison in Belize at the end of the month.

Will the Minister confirm that the recently announced decision to start withdrawing British troops from Belize was taken without the request or desire of the Belize Government? Does he also agree that the decision is precipitate and that the withdrawal will take place before Guatemala and Belize have reached full agreement? Does he accept that the decision does not represent a strategic move but the chaotic state of planning in his Department, whereby we have too few troops and too many roles and responsibilities for them to fulfil?

No, I do not accept at all what the hon. Gentleman says. Guatemala has now recognised Belize and our assessment of the security threats to Belize is that they are very low. In those circumstances, it is only right that we review our commitment to having a battalion permanently based there. If we continue to take the view that we should have garrisons around the world which have been sent out to help and are then never withdrawn, the British Army will be very extended.

When my right hon. Friend travels to Belize next month, may I suggest that he travels via East Midlands airport? In doing so, he will go past the Glen Parva Army records office which may be relocated in Scotland. If he travels to Belize via Leicestershire, will he take the opportunity to see the benefits for the Army of maintaining that records office in Leicestershire rather than moving it to Scotland? But if it is—

Order. That was a very good and amusing try by the hon. Gentleman. I shall be careful not to look his way for a very long time

I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity. On my way to Belize, I will certainly bear in mind the claims that my hon. Friend has made for some time for the Army records office to be in his constituency. As he knows, a proposal has now been made for Glasgow. Although we are going through a consultation period, I hope that it will end up with the decision that we have put forward.

Is the Minister so sure that democracy in Guatemala will be enduring and that a real solution will be found to the territorial waters dispute, for example? All historical precedent is to the contrary. Does not he realise that the withdrawal of British forces from Belize not only provides the possibility for political instability in the area, but, because the presence of British forces produces 15 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Belize, is likely to undermine the economy of that country? What firm will invest in an insecure Belize?

Clearly, if we thought that there were unacceptable risks in the proposal, we should not put it forward. Our assessment of the position in the area and Guatemala's attitude towards Belize have enabled us to make the decision. Our high commissioner has assessed our contribution to the GDP of Belize to be no more than 3 to 4 per cent. I agree that that is a significant amount, but it is not as large as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security of a very small country in a highly unstable part of the world merits more than a written answer on policy two days ago and a flippant supplementary previously? Belize is the best place, apart from Brunei, for training in jungle warfare for Her Majesty's forces. The Belize defence force has no significant air force. Its neighbours are strong and prone to rapid changes in regime, and there is drug running. I do not believe that the Government have the support of the United States Administration. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that?

We shall continue training. We have been asked by the Belize Government to continue our training there and we shall continue to take advantage of the perfectly excellent facilities to which my hon. Friend alludes. Belize will have to look to regional arrangements to ensure its security in future. We have, of course, been in touch with the United States over this and we have kept it informed of what we are doing.

Will the Minister tell the House whether the group of people who advised him of the threat assessment to Belize were the same as those who advised his predecessor of the threat assessment to the Falklands in 1982?

No, things have changed since 1982. There are now different people giving similar advice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department gives directly and indirectly to British defence exporters.

We give extensive advice and support to British defence exporters, mainly through the Defence Export Services Organisation.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that if we had listened to the CND lunatics opposite, there would not be a defence industry at all? Will he confirm that we are not about to cut defence spending by 25 per cent. and that we are not about to wipe out the Royal Air Force? That is exactly what the lot opposite planned. Will he ask them once and for all, "Yes or no?"

I always listen to my hon. Friend in preference to the CND types opposite, either current or old. I gladly confirm that we have absolutely no plans to make the savage cuts that my hon. Friend suggested the Labour party supported at its party conference. We believe that our defences are in good shape for many years to come.

On defence exports, how many dead or tortured East Timorese are acceptable to the Government in exchange for a defence contract with Indonesia?

That is a ridiculous question. The British Government do not export arms of any type to any country without very careful export licensing. By means of our export licensing process, we seek to avoid the export of arms that could be used for the repression of individuals.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Government nuclear defence policy.

The Government intend that our independent nuclear deterrent should continue to provide the ultimate guarantee of our security, underpinning our defence strategy and providing a significant contribution to alliance deterrent forces.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government's nuclear defence policy will remain firm and consistent, unlike that of the socialists opposite? Will my right hon. Friend also take this opportunity to say that the Government do not intend to follow the Labour party's lead yesterday when, once again, it changed its nuclear defence policy and said that it would leave this country undefended by negotiating away our minimum deterrent, while other countries remain nuclear powers?

At this point, I should make an apology to the House. At the last Defence Question Time, I said that the Opposition Front Bench had gone through a 180 deg turn on nuclear deterrence. That was clearly wrong. The Labour party had gone through a 360 deg turn on nuclear deterrence. It is alarming to me that only yesterday the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) talked about negotiating away our deterrent. I think that his only proviso was that the Labour party would not give Trident away for nothing. Personally, I do not find that very reassuring.

As NATO's nuclear doctrine is now one of minimum deterrence, is it not time that the Government abandoned the strategic anachronism of the tactical air-to-surface missile and declared that when Trident is deployed it will carry no more warheads than the Polaris system which it is to replace?

That is asking two questions. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he will have to wait for an announcement on the tactical air-to-surface missile, or whatever replacement we choose for the WE177 system. No decision has been made on the number of warheads that will be carried by Trident, but I suspect that it will be more than those that we are carrying on Polaris.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's announcement by Mr. Aspin—that America is no longer to develop an orbital global missile defence system—is dangerously premature and complacent? Will my right hon. Friend ask him to think again?

Yes. What has changed is the American conception of the threat from Russia, but America is still very much involved in a theatre defence system which can be deployed against any errant nation that might want to fire off ballistic missiles. One should not assume that the whole of that programme has been abandoned. It has not. It has just been restricted to a theatre system.

Given the Minister's dislike of 360 deg turns, does he recall that it is now two years since I and other members of the Opposition Front Bench told him that it was absolute nonsense, in the face of the current threats, to spend £3 billion on a new tactical nuclear weapon while cutting the infantry? Now that he has done a 360 deg turn on the infantry and accepted that we were right, can he confirm that he is reviewing and preparing the ground for his second 360 deg turn by abandoning the tactical air-to-surface nuclear weapon referred to in the White Paper? Can he also confirm that the money that is saved by that abandonment and his correct 360 deg turn towards the policy of the Labour party will not be frittered by economic madness but will be ploughed into the infantry and the Territorial Army, which are needed by this country if it is to fulfil its present commitments?

I think that the hon. Gentleman suffers from a certain amount of overstatement in saying that the restoration of two infantry battalions is a 360 deg turn on the British Army. As usual, he is asking me to pre-empt the decision about the replacement for the WE177 nuclear bomb. I have made it clear that we shall not do so. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for an announcement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for encouraging deregulation within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

My Department is enthusiastically supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative in a number of ways.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recognise that small firms competing for bids face a disproportionate burden under regulations? Will he give an undertaking that, in considering deregulation, the special needs of small firms will be borne in mind?

My hon. Friend makes an entirely good and valid point. We wish to encourage small businesses to win defence contracts from the Ministry. We are simplifying our contracts procedure and the form filling that sometimes must accompany it, and I can tell new business seekers from the small business world that the small business group of the new suppliers' service exists to deal with their inquiries and to facilitate their efforts to win our contracts.

What regulations will be deregulated? Will they be the low-flying regulations, the disciplinary regulations or the command structure regulations, or is this only an attack on low-paid workers such as the Ministry's cleaners and an attempt to replace guards at our defence establishments with those run by Group 4—in which case, God help our security?

The hon. Gentleman's lack of enthusiasm for defence matters is such that he might be the sort of Minister who would like to deregulate our disciplinary regulations and make our armed forces undisciplined. When I referred to deregulating, I was referring to business regulations and restrictions. The Ministry is not a regulator of business; nor are we responsible for any primary or secondary legislation. We are entering into the spirit of the deregulation initiative by getting rid of a number of over-complex, over-bureaucratic systems, such as unnecessarily irksome contract procedures, and are simplifying forms and so on. We are not entering the fantasy fields that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to place an order for attack helicopters; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, as I advised the House on 3 February, an invitation to tender for the supply of attack helicopters has been issued to potential bidders. It is our intention to acquire a complete weapons system, together with an associated support package.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that one of the lessons of the Gulf war was the importance of flexible and mobile forces, including attack and support helicopters? In the context of the reply that he has just given and that comment, will he say how many attack helicopters he expects to order and when he will be in a position to confirm the six-year-old requirement for 25 EH101s in the support role for the Royal Air Force?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the renewed emphasis that is needed in the aftermath of the Gulf war and about the need for greater mobility and flexibility in our weapons-carrying helicopters and support helicopters. I am reluctant to be drawn into great detail on the number of helicopters that we shall order because, to some extent, it must depend on the bids that we receive, but if I suggest a figure of about 100 attack helicopters, that is a reasonably clear signpost. I cannot confirm any order for support helicopters, but I am conscious of the remarks that were made to Parliament by previous Ministers.

Will the Minister confirm that the internal study group in the Ministry of Defence is considering the subject of attack helicopters and the carriers from which they might fly? Does the Ministry intend ever to procure a helicopter carrier or any other warship from Swan Hunter on Tyneside?

We all share the hon. Gentleman's sadness about the events at Swan Hunter. However, a contract was put forward and won fairly in open competition by the competing yard, VSEL. It is not for me to say what future Swan Hunter in receivership may have. That depends on the new ownership, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as the receivers confirm, my Department is taking a positive and constructive approach towards its current problems.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Nations peacekeeping efforts around the world are currently assisted by British forces.

The United Kingdom is currently providing forces for United Nations operations in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Cambodia, the western Sahara and on the Iraq-Kuwait border. More than 3,500 personnel are committed to those operations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, wherever in the world British peacekeeping forces have been deployed, they have shown the highest possible standards of fairness, restraint and general professionalism? Are they not a great credit to the country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain's contribution to United Nations peacekeeping forces is now one of the most extensive and generous of any country in the world?

Yes, indeed. We are running second only to the French in the number of troops we have deployed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about their being professional troops. So many of our European colleagues still have conscription; therefore, we have a great advantage. The experience of our troops in Northern Ireland means that they are some of the most professional —if not the most professional—troops that can be deployed on peacekeeping forces. That is one of the reasons why people want them all the time.

Given that United Nations peacekeeping operations are likely to increase rather than decrease over the next few years, may I remind the Minister that British infantry soldiers make excellent United Nations peacekeeping soldiers? With that in mind, will he ensure that the Scottish infantry regiments are not further run down, thereby damaging our commitment to those essential United Nations peacekeeping activities?

As I made clear earlier, we are always keeping force levels under review. The hon. Gentleman will know that, although it is not a United Nations commitment, we have been involved in a peacekeeping operation of a sizeable proportion in Northern Ireland, where we now have some 19,000 troops. Of course, the main onus of that falls on the Army. That is the biggest peacekeeping activity in which we are involved and it therefore makes it more difficult for us to be involved in any future United Nations operations.

I think that the burden of peacekeeping in Europe should be shared more by our European partners. I am very encouraged by the progress being made in changes in the constitution and deployment of professional forces who may be able to carry some of the burden as well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit the Falkland Islands to discuss the activities of the British garrison there.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited the Falkland Islands in March and was fully briefed on the activities of the garrison. He also had meetings with the governor and the councillors.

Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government will maintain their commitment to the Falkland Islands? Does he agree that the plan produced by the Labour party to cut £6 billion from the defence budget would jeopardise that?

Yes, indeed. I can certainly confirm our firm commitment to the defence of the Falkland Islands. Despite improving relationships with Argentina, we have to maintain a garrison there which is certainly worthy of the name. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the idea of cutting the defence budget put forward by Labour party conferences year after year. That would have a dramatic effect on our defence capability, not least in the Falklands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British ground forces are stationed in Bosnia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the contribution of British troops to securing peace in Bosnia.

The actual numbers of British armed forces personnel deployed to the former Yugoslavia in support of United Nations operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina fluctuate daily. On 16 May, however, there were 2,082 personnel, including 90 personnel from the Royal Naval Fleet Air Arm.

British troops have made a great contribution to the vital humanitarian aid operation which has alleviated the suffering of thousands.

Although everyone congratulates the British forces on the way in which they have performed their duties in Bosnia, does the Minister agree that the international community might have adopted a more decisive, interventionist policy had the main aggressors in Bosnia been Muslim and the main victims non-Muslim?

I do not accept that at all. The reason for a certain amount of hesitance to involve ground troops in an offensive action in Bosnia is that whoever went in would be embroiled in a civil war. That is why the international community has shown a reluctance about going into Bosnia before a ceasefire is established.

Given the valuable humanitarian role being carried out by our troops in Bosnia, will my right hon. Friend confirm that great caution will be exercised before agreeing to further military intervention that might put our troops at risk?

Yes, indeed. As I have said, it is important that a clear ceasefire is in being and then, if it is a question of monitoring that ceasefire, I think we will be more encouraged to commit further troops. Until the Vance-Owen plan has been signed and a ceasefire agreed, we are very reluctant to get further involved.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

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, in his busy schedule, had time to see a report of the National Consumer Council about international trade, which states that the dice are loaded against the consumer by the European Commission trade barriers and regulations which are costing billions of pounds extra every year, including £230 on a car, or £750 if it is imported into the Community, more than £1·2 billion extra on electronic goods and £17 per week on my grocery bill every time I push my trolley around Tesco? [Interruption.] Yes, and Norma. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and, more important, consumers outside the House that he will stamp on that tremendous waste and tell the European Community to put its house in order? [Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister.

I have not finished yet.

As far as I am concerned, the hon. Lady has finished.

I agree with my hon. Friend that reducing trade barriers does lead to lower prices and economic growth. That is why, above all, we want to get the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade completed—to bring down tariffs and barriers in order to increase trade to the benefit of both the industrialised and the non-industrialised world. As to the European Community, to which my hon. Friend made passing mention, the single market should remove trade barriers within the Community. I very much hope that it will live up to its expectations. It was a British initiative, negotiated by a British Prime Minister and concluded by a British Prime Minister.

May I, on behalf of the Opposition, express our whole-hearted sympathy to the parents and families of the victims of Beverly Allitt? Does the Prime Minister appreciate the full extent of the anger and apprehension among parents throughout the nation at the fact that it was possible in one of our hospitals for a nurse with a known psychiatric disorder to destroy the lives of children in her care? In view of the appalling negligence which has obviously occurred, why have the Government refused to have a full public inquiry, with the powers to require the evidence of witnesses to be given on oath and to compel the disclosure of all documents?

First, may I say that I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sympathy for the parents. I know that that view is echoed across the House. The main thing about this inquiry—and this, too, will be generally shared—is to have one that will be most likely to get at the truth and to ensure that, in the future, there is no likelihood of a repetition. We take the view that the inquiry to be conducted by Sir Cecil Clothier is likely to be the most effective. Sir Cecil has taken the view—this is an important matter for the House to consider—and said this afternoon:

"In my view, people will be more willing to speak frankly to my inquiry than to a public inquiry."

I share that view and I believe that, on that basis, it is right to proceed with the inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil.

No one doubts the competence or integrity of Sir Cecil Clothier, but how can he know whether people will be willing to give evidence? Surely, in the public interest, we should have an inquiry with the fullest powers. Does the Prime Minister not take into account the fact that the parents of the children concerned and the majority of the nursing staff want a full public inquiry so that nothing can be concealed? What is wrong with such a reasonable request?

Sir Cecil has agreed to see the parents of the children, and that is welcome—[Interruption.] If Sir Cecil wishes to have further powers, he will come back and seek them from the Government, and we will provide them. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Sir Cecil, as a former Parliamentary Commissioner for Health, not only commands the confidence of the House but has a great deal of experience in this area. I am happy to accept his judgment on what is the most appropriate way to carry out the inquiry that he is set to chair.

I must also tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman—because I know that he will regard this as important, too—that there has already been a lengthy public trial which has brought many of the key facts to light. There has been an independent inquiry into the quality of management. In addition, Sir Cecil is now heading an independent inquiry into events at the hospital. If he needs further powers, he will come and ask us for them.

Should not the nature of the powers be a matter for the Government's responsibility, not a matter for Sir Cecil Clothier? Was not the trial concerned with quite different issues than what is concerned here—[Interruption.]— and is it not inappropriate—

Order.

Is it not inappropriate—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order.

Is it not inappropriate for the inquiry to be set up and to be asked to report to the very regional health authority whose own actions may be a subject of the inquiry? Is it not totally unsatisfactory, as a solicitor for the parents has pointed out, that the Secretary of State for Health has apparently given more weight to the wishes of the health authority than to those of the parents of the children? [Interruption.]

Order.

I believe that, on reflection, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be ashamed of some of the things he just said. We want a rigorous and swift inquiry. We want an inquiry that will deal with the most important aspect of all, which is one that gets at the truth, not one that just raises party political points. My right hon. Friend has established such an inquiry —[Interruption.]— and she has appointed to head it someone with unique experience of the nature of the events. That man who is heading the inquiry has himself said that he believes that the people attending it will be more willing to speak freely to his inquiry than to a public inquiry. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not accept that advice.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

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

In between the cheap jibes of Opposition Members, has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the report into the future of local government in Derbyshire published yesterday? Is he aware of the massive local opposition to the proposal that the whole county should be divided into two vast unitary authorities? Does he share the view of Conservative Members that local government should be as close as possible to the people it represents and that there is not, and never could be, any shared sense of community between my constituents and those in Chesterfield or, dare I say it, Bolsover?

I agree with my hon. Friend that, as far as possible, the structure of local government should reflect local tradition and a local sense of community. That is, of course, one of the main points of the present inquiry. With regard to the Derbyshire inquiry, as my hon. Friend says, the Local Government Commission preference is for two unitary authorities. However, I understand that it has also put forward alternative solutions. I have no doubt' that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to make his views clear to the commission.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's policy of encouraging the reduction in the payment of benefits across post office counters will, it is calculated, result in the closure of up to 5,000 local rural post offices? Will the Prime Minister tell the House that he is now prepared to reconsider that foolish policy?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman thinks of a number and then doubles it for domestic consumption. I am surprised that he raises that matter today. I direct him to the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs gave in the House a day or so ago. He said, for the avoidance of doubt,

"we are…committed to the maintenance of a viable network of post offices",

including rural post offices. Pensioners will continue to be able to receive their pensions from the post office. We have encouraged them to make payments into their banks on a voluntary basis. But it is

"not Government policy to remove the right of pensioners to receive their pensions from the post office."—[Official Report, 13 May 1993, Vol. 224, c. 1035.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this year's public expenditure review is likely to be one of the toughest on record and that any restraint there must be in public expenditure must be shared to the fullest extent by local authorities as well as by Whitehall? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities would be wise to plan on the basis of no real growth in expenditure for the next financial year and that the Government are prepared to back up their policies by the fullest use of their capping powers?

We certainly have to consider the range of public expenditure, both centrally and for local government, in the public expenditure discussions that will begin very shortly. Those discussions will be concluded soon and we will make our views known to local authorities and others. On the general principle, my hon. Friend is clearly right to believe that we need to restrain public expenditure in the interests of the economy as a whole.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious and grave concern of all housing associations about the cut in Government resources for affordable housing? Is he also aware that if that policy continues, rents will rise sky high and people will not be able to afford housing? Is he prepared to listen to housing associations in relation to their concerns about affordable housing and will he also listen to local authorities which have the resources, finances and ability to provide affordable housing?

We have not in the past only listened to the Housing Corporation and to housing associations; we have acted on the basis of what they have had to say to us. In 1992–93, we spent more than £2·3 billion on the Housing Corporation, £350 million or so through estate action and more than £1·6 billion through local authorities. We have also provided specific help for the homeless, with nearly £100 million over the past three financial years and £86 million made available over the next three financial years. As a result of the measures that we have taken throughout the past decade, there are more home owners than ever before; council tenants have more control over their own estates—I know that that is not popular with Opposition Members—the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people has been cut by 38 per cent.; the rise in mortgage repossessions has been reversed; and the number of people sleeping rough in central London has more than halved. Why did the hon. Gentleman mention none of that?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Italian people got it absolutely right when they rejected proportional representation through the ballot box? Does he believe that those people who are rather cynically toying with the idea are doing that simply because it is the only way in which they will get their sticky little fingers on the levers of power?

I agree with my hon. Friend about that, and I know that I have a lot of support on the Opposition Benches for that particular view. Last year, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said:

"Any move on electoral reform by Labour would be interpreted as defeatist."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister now tell the House which of the technical reasons that make it impossible to privatise Northern Ireland water within the lifetime of this Parliament do not apply to Scotland?

We are still considering the consultation in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I think that it is better to reply after we have considered all the consultation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has been entirely right to reject calls for further substantial military action in the Bosnian region? Such action would lead to guerrilla warfare, substantial loss of life and—given recent comments—bomb outrages on the streets of London without any furtherance of the peacemaking process or helping to find a permanent solution to the problem.

There are many complex difficulties to be solved in the particular problems faced in Bosnia. I believe that the stance that we have taken, which has been shared by many of our allies, has been entirely the right stance in Bosnia. We continue to work with our allies towards a series of objectives. I hope that we will soon be able to bring permanent peace to that area.