To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence budget has been devoted to nuclear weapons in each of the last five years.

The estimated percentage share of the defence budget devoted to strategic nuclear weapons in each of the past five years is, in 1984–85 2·3 per cent., in 1985–86 2·8 per cent., in 1986–87 3·6 per cent., in 1987–88 4·7 per cent., in 1988–89 5·6 per cent.

As Britain's defence budget has been reduced over the past three years from what it was originally projected to be, and as the nuclear element will be substantially increased if the Prime Minister's obsession with modernising tactical nuclear weapons is successful, will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that he will protect and defend the conventional weapons element of his budget in the future?

Yes, I can give that categorical assurance. The matter should be seen in perspective. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that this year's defence budget, excluding nuclear strategic forces, is £¾ billion higher in real terms than the whole of the 1978–79 defence budget, even including the Polaris programme. An enormously greater amount is being spent on conventional forces than there ever was before 1979.

I am sure that my right hen. Friend will join me in welcoming Mr. Gorbachev's efforts to reduce the Soviet Union's defence capacity, but when thinking of this country's future need for nuclear defence will he bear strongly in mind the fact that some smaller countries will have a nuclear capability—especially Israel and South Africa, both of which probably have that capacity already—and others such as Libya will, unfortunately, probably develop it? Does he agree that whatever happens between the two superpowers it is unlikely that this country Bill be able to do without an element of nuclear deterrence in the foreseeable future?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the improvements in the Soviet position and the reductions in Soviet weapon systems that have been announced. We shall be watching carefully to be sure that they actually happen. I also agree that, while seeking further reductions by every means that we can, it is still essential to keep up our strength in nuclear and conventional forces until the Soviet forces decrease to roughly the same level as our own.

In relation to the production of weapons-grade plutonium, will the Secretary of State make it clear that the decision by British Nuclear Fuels last week to announce a feasibility study into the construction of an advanced gas-cooled reactor or pressurised water reactor at Sellafield is in no way dependent on a contribution from the Ministry of Defence, that the only contracts that would go to BNFU for weapons-grade plutonium would be extending existing contracts from the facility already in place and that it is a misrepresentation by journalists to say that the plant will be built to fulfil Britain's nuclear weapons requirements?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the announcement by BNFL last week has nothing to do with me. He will have to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy as the announcement has no connection with the defence programme as such.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on briefing h on. and right hon. Members undertaking visits to the Soviet Union.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence would be happy to consider any request for briefing from hon. or right hon. Members undertaking visits to the Soviet Union.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's recent delegation to Moscow, in search of its defence policy and to audition for a part in the nuclear disarmament show, came back with a script that my hon. Friend's Department could have written in advance—that the Russians totally reject the Labour party's unilateralist approach and much prefer the Government's multilateral list approach?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. General Vladimir Lobov was reported as saying that although unilateralism is an imaginative gesture it is neither realistic nor a serious option for a major power. If that team of hon. Members had come for a briefing at the Ministry of Defence we could have given them the information and saved them the cost of the journey.

Does the Minister agree that one important issue that could be raised by those visiting the Soviet Union is chemical weapons? Does he agree that although it is right to give a cautious welcome to Mr. Schevardnadze's announcement at the beginning of January we should urge the Soviet Union to provide a full and frank disclosure of its chemical weapons capability? Does he further agree that we should urge the Soviet Union to allow our experts the same kind of access that Soviet experts were recently afforded at Porton Down?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. Access and verification are the keys to the whole business of controlling chemical weapons in the future. In that statement from Mr. Schevardnadze the Soviet Union admitted to having 50,000 tonnes of chemical agents—the first time that the Soviet Union had ever admitted to having any chemical capability—and even that figure differed greatly from our estimates of the tonnage of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs I visited Moscow in November and met the same people as the Labour delegation met? That delegation will probably have returned in total confusion because it is clear that there is a high regard in Moscow for the consistent defence policy followed by the British Government? It is also clear that the Soviet Union has started its own reductions in the face of our steadfastness in the past.

That is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend is right that the Soviet Union respects people who negotiate from a position of strength rather than weakness.

When briefings are given to politicians visiting the Soviet Union does the Ministry of Defence classify D5 Trident missiles as a first-strike or a second-strike weapon?

That is a hypothetical question because in practice no briefings are given to hon. Members visiting the Soviet Union.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to go to Washington and Brussels first when trying to construct a defence and disarmament strategy so that nothing is given away in talks to the Russians due to not knowing our allies' position?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When formulating a defence policy it is strange to discuss it with the Communist Government. That must be an indication of the Leftward leanings of the Opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from (i) German citizens and (ii) the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany seeking a reduction of low flying in Germany.

My right hon. Friend has not received any such representations from citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany, but last week he had discussions with his German colleague, Dr. Scholz, about a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including ways in which it might be possible to ease the impact of low-flying training on German citizens.

I am glad that the Minister is now giving some information about last week's meeting because the Ministry of Defence press release made no reference to German representations about low-flying aircraft. Are we to understand from the Minister's answer that there will now be a reduction in the number of low flights over West Germany? If that is the case, will there be a subsequent increase in the number of such flights over the United Kingdom? If so, may I advise the Minister that that would be totally unacceptable to the people of this country?

None of those assumptions is correct. The hon. Gentleman might have helped himself by studying the transcript of the press conference given by my right hon. Friend and the German Defence Minister.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the low flying carried out in West Germany and in this country is an integral part of our defence posture in terms of deterrence? Does he also agree that the amount of low flying carried out in this country is roughly the same as that carried out in West Germany and that the vast majority of the German population understand the need for it and would support its continuance at the present level?

My hon. Friend is correct. Low-level flying is a military requirement and there is an essential minimum of flying training that must be carried out over West European terrain. There is substantial public support for that training because it is considered a crucial part of our operating capability.

Does the Minister not feel that the German people, of all people, would understand the vital necessity of low flying training, bearing in mind that if Goering's Luftwaffe air fleet had crossed the Channel in 1940 at wave top height the outcome of the battle of Britain might have been very different?

We can all learn from history and I am sure that the West German public will not be slow to take that lesson.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been achieved through the Anglo-French reciprocal purchasing initiative.

The progress of this initiative has been good. Some contracts have already been signed and more tenders are under consideration on both sides of the Channel. A French contracts bulletin is now being published, three successful conferences have been held and there are regular and increasing contacts between procurement staffs at all levels.

Given that public procurement in general would be on a non-discriminatory basis in the European single market after 1992, does my hon. Friend agree that in defence too, there are the strongest reasons for achieving maximum economies of scale in research and production and the greatest inter-operability of equipment? Does he accept that he and his colleagues will receive the strongest support in the House for any progress that they can make in that direction?

My hon. Friend is right in identifying three of the main advantages to be obtained from agreements such as the one to which the question relates. First, there is a saving in research and development expenditure; secondly, there are savings from longer production runs; thirdly, of course, he raised the important point that there are benefits to the alliance from greater inter-operability of service equipment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had about compensating those affected by British atomic weapons testing in Australia.

Ministers have had a number of discussions with various groups and individuals on the question of possible compensation for those who have claimed that their ill health is attributable to participation in the United Kingdom's nuclear test.

The Minister will know of the recent Australian Supreme Court decision when Mr. Rick Johnstone, an ex-airman who was present at a British atomic site in the 1950s, was awarded £300,000 compensation. Surely it is only fair to the families and to the surviving airmen, some of whom are in great pain and discomfort, for the British Government to provide proper compensation for men who were present at those sites in good faith.

The judgment of the Australian court is not yet available in this country. We shall certainly study it with great care when it is available because we are anxious to be as fair as possible and to treat all our service men on an equal basis. Indeed, if we established to our satisfaction that there was a link between a person's presence at the atomic tests and an illness we would be anxious to give compensation. When the Australian judgment becomes available, however, we may find that it is not directly relevant to the issue with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that it is beyond the bounds of what is reasonable to expect British ex-service men who took part in this country's Australian and Pacific nuclear test programme in the 1950s and who are now suffering from leukaemia and various forms of cancer—some have already died—to prove, as the Government at present require them to prove, that their illnesses are a direct result of that nuclear test programme? Bearing in mind the service that those people gave to this country in the prime of their youth, would it not be more satisfactory to consider whether there is a reasonable balance of probability that their illnesses were caused by exposure to radiation during that test programme? Will my hon. Friend consider that?

We have the greatest sympathy with those who are suffering ill health and who genuinely and sincerely believe that that is attributable to their participation in tests. My hon. Friend will be aware, as will the House, of the National Radiological Protection Board's extensive research programme and of its findings, and we are continuing to keep that under review. My hon. Friend will also be aware that in our actions we must be fair to all service men—those who took part in the tests and those who did not—and treat all of them fairly and equally.

In view of the strong comments from both sides of the House, is not the Minister's reply complacent, insulting and a kick in the teeth for British service men? Is the Minister saying that British service men are worth less than Australian service men, that British service men suffered less than Australian service men or that British service men are more resistant to radiation than Australian service men? If the answer to those questions is no and Mr. Rick Johnstone receives £300,000 compensation, should not British service men receive an equal amount for their suffering over the many years following those tests?

I appreciate the concern on both sides of the House about this important issue. That is why the National Radiological Protection Board conducted its independent research, and it would be unreasonable completely to ignore the outcome of that research. It might be wiser for the hon. Gentleman to delay his somewhat outspoken comments about Mr. Johnstone until we have all had the opportunity to see the Australian court's judgment which is not yet available in Britain.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when next he intends to visit Belize.

I was in Belize last month to visit British forces there. I was greatly impressed by the efficiency and enthusiasm with which they are fulfilling their important role. I was also able to meet the Prime Minister of Belize, Mr. Esquivel. I have no plans to visit Belize again in the immediate future.

Without wishing to give Guatemala a wrong signal, will my right hon. Friend consider the good will towards Britain and the progress towards democracy in Guatemala when deciding upon the level of the defence forces to be kept in Belize?

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. I found great good will towards the British defence forces and the British Government, and the Prime Minister of Belize expressed his gratitude for all that the British forces do there. My hon. Friend will know that talks are continuing with the Government of Guatemala, but in the meantime I assured the Prime Minister that British forces would remain for an appropriate period at the request of the Government of Belize.

When assessing the conditions of service men and service women in Belize, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the comments made during the debate on the Defence Estimates about pay, allowances and conditions throughout our armed forces and give a categorical assurance that he will consider council house—[Interruption.] A Freudian slip, Mr. Speaker—I would buy another if I had the chance. [Interruption.] It is Labour party policy.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I recall what was said in the recent Estimates debate. I assure him that we give high priority to trying to obtain an appropriate form of military salary with a mix of allowances to reflect service men's conditions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, every year the armed forces pay review body has made recommendations and every year the Government have implemented them in full.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Belize is the last place where British soldiers can have experience of jungle warfare? Will he therefore take a robust line with his Treasury colleagues?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Belize is certainly a good place for jungle training. I was able to take part in some jungle training myself—[Interruption.] It is very valuable and useful in the House. Training in such conditions is undoubtedly valuable for British forces, all of whom have expressed great satisfaction at the training facilities available.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the so-called temporary nature of the British military presence in Belize has been used as a reason not to provide the kind of investment in facilities that is really needed in such an extreme climate? As British troops have been there for 40 years, can we not give them the decent living and working conditions that they deserve if they are to stay there much longer?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. We are examining the accounting methods used for planning improvements in Belize. I shall be looking at that very carefully in future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in that part of central America the presence of British forces in Belize is regarded as a strong force for stability, especially in the run-up to the Guatemalan presidential election? Will my right hon. Friend also comment on the role of British forces in Belize as a forward emergency task force in the case of hurricane damage in the Caribbean?

During my visit it was made very clear to me by all concerned that the presence of British troops is very welcome to the people and Government of Belize and also, I believe, to the Government of Guatemala. All concerned made a point of expressing to me their tremendous gratitude for the help that the British services gave during hurricane Gilbert earlier last year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the United States Secretary of Defence; and what matters were discussed.

I met the United States Secretary of Defence at the Wehrkunde conference at the end of last month. A range of matters of mutual interest were discussed.

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Americans about their plans to double their spending on military bases in Britain in the next two years? Has he been consulted, and does he have any plans to tell Parliament about them, or must we rely on reports from Washington?

Any such improvements to American bases in this country have to be subject to the approval of the British Government. We understand that the projected improvements are to improve existing facilities for existing services at those bases.

In considering the general principle of discussing defence matters, does my right hon. Friend agree that Bruce Kent got things right for once when he said that anyone who needed to go to Moscow to discuss defence matters obviously did not have a defence policy of their own?

I saw a report of that remark, but I have not raised or discussed it with the United States Administration.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the doubling of defence expenditure on bases in Britain by the Americans would broadcast completely the wrong signal to the Soviet Union at this time and would undoubtedly strengthen those forces in the Soviet Union who are trying to slow down the pace of Gorbachev's proposals for disarmament? Will the Secretary of State therefore join what I think would be the overwhelming majority view in Britain, ensure that the expenditure does not take place and instead respond positively to Gorbachev's proposals and give a European lead towards reducing the presence of American troops in Europe?

I have already explained that the expenditure on United States bases is to make existing facilities more effective. The hon. Gentleman is way behind the game with regard to reductions, and Mr. Gorbachev is miles behind this country and NATO in the reductions that we have made. Since 1979 we have reduced our nuclear warheads by 2,400, even before the INF treaty was implemented. That is a reduction of about 35 per cent. in nuclear warheads. Mr. Gorbachev has a long way to go before he gets anywhere near that.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the United States Secretary of Defence, will he bring to his attention that it is essential that the United States Air Force and the Royal Air Force maintain the ability and capability of flying low and fast to hit targets? Never again must we have the situation that we faced in 1940, when air crew were required to fly with great valour Fairey Battles and Bristol Blenheims against heavily defended targets at the cost of severe losses. Winning a Victoria cross was never a substitute for the ability to take out a target effectively and properly.

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, and so does all of NATO. Although I feel sure that it will not be necessary to remind the new United States Secretary of Defence of that fact, I feel sure that he, too, agrees strongly with my hon. Friend's comments.

In view of the reply by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to my question last month, in which he stated that there will still be a role for tactical nuclear weapons in the event of conventional parity being reached, did the right hon. Gentleman explain to the United States Secretary of Defence that the British Government have unilaterally changed the basis of flexible response, which they have consistently argued allows for the tactical nuclear option because of the Warsaw pact's overwhelming conventional superiority?

There has been no change in the doctrine of flexible response. If, as the hon. Gentleman and I hope, the stage is reached where there is parity of conventional weapons, a very different situation will exist in the world of arms control generally. No doubt all sorts of matters would have to be examined afresh.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we owe the Americans a great debt of gratitude for their commitment to Europe? Does he further agree that, at a time when the American foreign exchange costs of keeping their forces in Europe are approximately equal to their entire overseas payments deficit, future agendas should include discussions on burden sharing?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the debate on burden sharing in NATO should continue in the months ahead. I have no doubt that there is now better appreciation on the other side of the Atlantic of the large amount that European nations do in their own defence—and there is a determination to do more whenever we can.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice is given to area health authorities for emergency planning in the event of radioactive emission from a nuclear-powered submarine while in port; and if he will make a statement.

Area health authorities are represented on the liaison committees that produce safety schemes for all United Kingdom ports in which there are berths for nuclear-powered submarines. They are provided with information on possible consequences of, and hazards from, any submarine nuclear reactor accident, and advice on suitable protective measures to deal with such an event.

Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to consider a report published recently by academics at the University of Wales, suggesting that the Royal Navy grievously underestimates the effects of a nuclear submarine accident on the civilian population in places such as Plymouth, Liverpool and Cardiff? Has he read today's report from Greenpeace, suggesting that levels of radiation are nine times higher than official acceptable levels in places near to bases in Scotland? Does the Secretary of State agree that safety levels should be reconsidered, that local authorities should reassess their plans for dealing with nuclear accidents, and that restrictions should be placed on submarines entering densely populated areas?

We are extremely strong on nuclear submarine safety. We would never allow a nuclear submarine to enter any port unless it was thoroughly approved by the nuclear safety inspectorate concerned, which reports directly to us. The hon. Gentleman can be well assured of that. As to this morning's report from Greenpeace, I see nothing to quarrel with in the methodology used in calculating estimated radiation levels, but I quarrel with the conclusions that are drawn. As I understand it, the Greenpeace study concludes, that, at worst, approximately 1 per cent. of the permitted level of radiation might be suffered by somebody affected in the areas studied. To place that in perspective, it is equivalent to the amount of radiation to which we are all exposed on a return shuttle flight to Glasgow. It is absurd to suggest that that causes any danger to anyone.

The Secretary of State knows that the emergency planning procedures for the Clyde public safety scheme have been revised. Will he give an undertaking today that the Ministry of Defence will have meaningful discussions with the local authority, and to demonstrate that approach will the Secretary of State allow the local authorities funding for independent monitoring so that public confidence in the area may be maintained?

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we are consulting local authorities, and will continue to do so, on an ongoing basis to draw up public safety schemes. I understand that authorities in his area are among those taking part in such discussions. With regard to reporting on these schemes, we provide the maximum information that we can, and that should be sufficient for everyone to take a full part in the discussions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

I next expect to see Dr. Wörner at the meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group in the late spring. We shall discuss a range of subjects of mutual interest.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the secretary-general, will he discuss the urgent need to modernise NATO's short-range nuclear missiles, particularly bearing in mind the great superiority of the Soviet Union in this area? Can he assure the House that if there is a change of policy in this area it will be as a result of tough negotiations with the Russians rather than of having accepted the cosy advice of the Russians?

I note what my hon. Friend says. NATO will have to come to the question of the modernisation of short-range weapons and I am sure that it will bear in mind that there are very strong arguments for having such weapons—arguments that I have often deployed myself. There are also strong arguments, although I do not agree with them, for not having these weapons at all. But I submit that there are no arguments for having out-of-date unmodernised weapons, which are useless to all concerned.

Will the Defence Secretary impress upon Dr. Wörner the supreme importance of defence co-operation in these days of escalating defence costs, if the era of structural disarmament is not to be hastened, because the latest thinking of Tom Callahan on his familiar theme is really very alarming? Will he, further, remind Dr. Wörner that no member nation has done more than the United Kingdom to promote joint collaboration?

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The more collaboration there can be between allies, the better. Indeed, if we do not pursue that we shall find it increasingly difficult to afford the systems we need.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Soviet forces have a great preponderance of short-range nuclear weapons compared with the NATO Alliance and, furthermore, are continuing to modernise them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Soviet Union has modernised all its shorter-range systems in the last few years. It is, therefore, a very obvious ploy to try to discourage NATO from doing the same. Decisions will have to come up soon on that and I am quite sure that the balance of advantage is to make sure that NATO still has an adequate range of options for its flexible response strategy.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is still desirable that the Irish Republic should play a part in NATO? Will he take the opportunity when he meets the secretary-general to discuss that as a real possibility?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but strictly speaking that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

In the discussions with NATO perhaps my right hon. Friend will remember that the burden sharing throughout Europe could be well represented by the European pillar of NATO, which is, of course, the Western European Union? I feel that groups such as WEU should be involved more than they are at present in such discussions.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are joint chairmen of WEU this year, I strongly agree with what he says and I think that the WEU is acting as quite an effective way of expressing the European contribution to our collective defence.

Given the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for short-range weapons, could he, in his discussions with Manfred Wörner, take account of German anxieties about these weapons, because it is over Germany's land area that they would travel? Could he explain to the House his views on a follow-on to Lance, for which very little enthusiasm is being expressed in the Federal Republic? Does he think, therefore, that there will be any decision before December 1990, when the Federal Republic has its Bundestag elections?

I feel that I should begin by saying, "Welcome back." I was beginning to fear from the hon. Gentleman's notable silence earlier that he must have visited a Trappist monastery in Russia, with due results.

In view of the chairmanship of the independent European programme group which my right hon. Friend will be undertaking over the next two years, will he say what discussions he may have with the secretary-general about the importance of transnational co-operation on an industrial base to ensure that we in Europe continue at least to keep a proportion of the equipment with which we supply our own defence needs?

Yes, I shall be keeping the secretary-general in close touch with the work of the IEPG during the next two years when we shall be chairing that body. I know that he fully supports what we are trying to do. At present we are trying in particular to create an open market in defence equipment throughout western Europe, which should be greatly to the advantage of collaboration and the procurement of our equipment generally.

Would it not be wiser, in view of the divisiveness on modernisation in the Federal Republic of Germany, to concentrate first on a stand-off air-launch missile—on which it is probably possible to reach unanimity in NATO—and essential modernisation for Tornado and F-111 aircraft, and to leave aside the question of Lance for the next couple of years?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. As he knows, we are considering with our allies the best course to follow in replacing our free-fall bombs, and one of the possibilities would be a stand-off air-launch missile. Discussions are continuing.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of Dr. Wörner's interest in the announcement of the Tornado midlife update. Will he tell us when that will occur?

We shall be making announements about the precise details, but I have no doubt that the Tornado midlife update will have to be brought forward soon, as it is a high priority.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest annual cost of maintenance of the Polaris fleet.

In the current financial year it is estimated that some £271 million will be spent on the maintenance of the Polaris fleet.

Is not that sum staggering when we bear in mind the recent expenditure of £500 million on replacement rocket motors? Will the Minister comment on the Government's morality—a morality which cuts back expenditure on, for example, new school building in my constituency, yet can lavish nearly £1 billion on new motors and annual maintenance?

Any defence expenditure must be seen in terms of its deterrent effect, and there is no doubt that our independent nuclear deterrent has proved to be very good value for money. That view was accepted by the last Labour Government, who agreed that the Polaris system should be subject to the Chevaline update and were so ashamed of their decision that they kept it secret. They were worried about the reaction of unilateralists on their own Back Benches such as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Does my hon. Friend think it likely that the subject of the cost of maintaining the Polaris fleet was raised at the meeting between Labour party leaders and the Soviet leadership in Moscow recently? Could the deafening silence from the Opposition Benches today on that visit he explained by a large dose of pique at being snubbed by a Soviet Government who would much rather deal with a party not imbued with what Brezhnev called "the naivety of unilateralism"?

One problem we have is that the delegation that has come back from Moscow has been quiet about what was discussed. It would be helpful if the members of that delegation could reveal rather more of their discussion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the latest procurement plans for the EFA radar system.

A report by the prime contractor is currently under consideration by NEFMA, the international management agency for the EFA programme, and by the collaborating nations. I would hope that a decision on the winning consortium could be made early this year.

Will the Minister comment on the specification and supply of EFA radar systems—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]. Will he ensure that his decision will not prejudice Britain's electronics and radar industries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]—research base, and— [Interruption.]

Order.

I regret to say that, whether or not it was read, I was unable to hear the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

rose—

Order. We must get on. Questions to the Prime Minister.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including the Spanish Foreign Minister. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Soviet Deputy Prime Minister. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern about fraud; about reports of the siphoning off of EEC funds to the IRA and the Mafia and about often poor policing of basic EEC rules? How does my right hon. Friend intend to protect the interests of the British people in general and the taxpayers in particular?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the extent of fraud in the use of EC funds revealed by the Court of Auditors is a matter of great concern. Some of the remedies are in national hands, but we believe that the rules applied by the Community must be tightened up and any suspect cases investigated vigorously. The Parliament has also raised this matter with the Commission, and I shall hope to raise it at the next European Council.

Will the Prime Minister say why, in meetings with the water companies, the Government have given the green light for huge increases in water charges?

There are two aspects of the water companies. The water companies as such are the privatised section; the water authorities are being denationalised. The water companies—as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the record for the last four years—have had both lower price increases and have charged for the last four years much lower prices per household than have the water authorities.

With an answer like that, I wonder why the right hon. Lady's Ministers say that these huge rises are unjustified. Will the Prime Minister confirm that at a meeting at the Department of the Environment on 1 December it was agreed with the private water companies that they should

"raise their tariffs to the maximum permitted"

"strongly advised not to suggest that privatisation as such makes their tariff increases necessary"?

The facts I have given to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—he can get from the tables. They show that the water companies have been charging for the last four years prices below those of the nationalised statutory authorities. Several statutory companies have announced increases in prices. The amount under regulation that they will be able to charge will depend on the cost of the service that they provide and their reasonable profits. Therefore, there is virtually no point in putting up their prices now.

The Prime Minister is now telling us that those rises are justified. Why did the Leader of the House tell us yesterday that those rises were not justified?

The right hon. Gentleman did not listen. I said that the increase in prices—if they are trying to start from a higher base—will have virtually no effect because we are introducing a better—[Interruption.] He should listen.

Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question and must be given the opportunity to answer it.

The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not like the facts. We are introducing a better system of regulation for water companies, under which they will need to satisfy the Director General of Water Services, introduced under the Bill, that the proposed increases are justified. At the moment, their prices are below those of the nationalised authorities.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen that shares in the National Freight Corporation were quoted for the first time on the stock exchange yesterday, and that its employees saw the profits from their small shareholdings in that privatised company rise enormously? Is she aware that if the Labour party had had its way, those employees, instead of receiving that profit for their families would now be working for a sterile nationalised industry?

Yes. The privatisation of the National Freight Corporation has been very successful, both for consumers and for those who worked extremely hard in the industry to make it successful. Hard work has given them an excellent reward; they have been able to build up capital, which they would never have been able to do under a Labour Government. We wish them well and thank them for their great endeavours.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee to the House that, under the health review, existing district health authorities will retain their accident and emergency departments? Since this is a life and death issue, will she answer yes or no?

The district health authorities and the self-governing hospitals will have to retain their accident and emergency departments because that is a fundamental core service. Either the district health authorities or the self-governing hospitals will have to run effective accident and emergency services.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether she has extended—and if not, whether she will consider extending today—an official invitation to visit this country to President George Bush, to ensure that the alliance between Great Britain and America stays as strong as it has always been?

President Bush knows that he will be welcome in this country at any time when he is able to come. He might have other matters on his mind at the moment. He will be visiting Europe for the economic summit in July and there is a possibility of a NATO Heads of Government meeting. We need have no fear about the special relationship. It will continue as staunchly in the future as it has in the past.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

The Prime Minister has spent the past 10 years lecturing the nation on law and order. Is she aware that in Leicestershire violent crime has risen by 73 per cent. during that period? In his miserable attempt to deal with the problem, the Home Secretary has announced an increase of only an extra 18 police officers, despite the request by the chief constable for an extra 89 officers. When will the Government end their conspiracy with the muggers, rapists and others who survive to destroy society because of this Government?

Of course, I reject totally what the hon. Gentleman has said. A Government who have increased the numbers of police enormously, the amount of money enormously, the amount of equipment enormously and the amount of training enormously and have received a great deal of co-operation from the public, a Government who support the prevention of terrorism Act, and a Government who have increased maximum sentences, are a Government who have been fighting crime. We wish that we had the full co-operation of Opposition Members.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to her ministerial team at the Treasury the warm thanks of the charity world following yesterday's announcement that charitable expenditure on new construction work is largely to retain its existing zero rating for VAT purposes?

Yes, of course. Yesterday the new VAT regulations following the judgment of the European Court were published. We have taken full advantage of the latitude that is permitted to give a very good deal to charities and also to provide transitional arrangements for others who will be adversely affected. A very good job has been done.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

Given that it is Government policy that before a school moves out of local authority control there should be a vote by parents, and before housing moves out of local government control there should be a vote by tenants, why is it not explicit Government policy that before a hospital such as Guy's in my constituency moves out of local authority control—[Interruption]— local health authority control, there should be a vote by the users of that service, namely the patients in the Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority area? Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that those people will have a vote, and, if not, why not?

Schools come under local authorities, as do council houses, so it is very obvious that parents and tenants should have a vote. But hospitals, as the hon. Member knows, do not.

Will my right hon. Friend express her deep concern to the Dutch and Belgian authorities about their failure to prosecute two Irishmen who were found in possession of weapons allegedly used in the murder of two British service men? Does she agree that international terrorism will be beaten only by international co-operation?

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that proposition, and from most countries we get such co-operation. As my hon. Friend is aware, there are times when we do not succeed in getting people extradited, but for the most part we get increasing co-operation, particularly among the police and the security services, in the fight against terrorism.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

Has the Prime Minister seen the league table that was published in Hansard on 11 January showing that the Derbyshire county council, which is Labour-controlled, has the best staff-pupil ratio of any shire county? It is top in special education, top in secondary education, and second, by a hair's breadth, in primary education. Will the right hon. Lady congratulate the Derbyshire county council on this achievement?

I understand that it also has very, very high spending. But I am very glad if it has excellent education; the hon. Member must be very pleased with Conservative education policy.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the monopoly that currently operates with the BBC and ITV in terms of the prior publication of programmes, particularly since we now have Sky TV's competing channels?

Yes, but the whole of broadcasting is, in fact, changing because of the speed of new technology and, of course, because of the alternative channels. I think that we shall soon have the debate on the White Paper, when we shall be able to consider these matters and how to deal with them in legislation.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

Has the Prime Minister yet had the chance to reconsider her grossly offensive speech in Scotland on Friday? Has no one told her that she united practically the entire Scottish population with her objectionable views? Does she not realise that the stupidity of her declared veto is as dangerous as the stupid separatism of Scottish Nationalists? Are they in consort with each other?

If I may say so, in the place where I gave the speech before 675 people. many of them journalists, it was very well received. I pointed out that under a Conservative Government, Scotland is doing better than ever and that Scotland could not possibly have achieved that response to Conservative policies without being in tune with them, even though many people, like the hon. Gentleman, find it difficult to admit it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

Now that the Russians are leaving or have left Afghanistan, the Cubans and South Africans have left Namibia, and the Vietnamese are leaving Kampuchea, will my right hon. Friend join me in hoping that ere long the Israelis will leave the occupied west bank and Gaza?

The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan is a great tribute to the resistance who never let up in their fight for their country. Also, it is a great tribute to Pakistan which has received so many refugees. We are very pleased that the withdrawal is virtually complete. I join my hon. Friend in hoping that we shall soon see negotiations begin on a settlement to the middle east problem.