To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Foxhunter radar is currently performing according to its original specifications.

The Foxhunter programme is proceeding by way of staged improvements under a firm price contract. Radars to an agreed interim standard are already being fitted to the Tornado air defence variant. All radars will be brought up to the full technical standard, beginning next year.

I do not know what this lot are messing about at. They have been at it for a number of years and have spent millions of pounds, yet we do not have the proper radar for the defence of this nation. They should be here at the Bar, and Ministers should be charged with complicity.

The hon. Gentleman did not ask a question. In so far as his statement meant anything, he was wholly incorrect. We are at great pains to ensure that the proper radar is regularly upgraded. The agreed interim standard radars have been fitted and radars to the full technical standard will start next year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the air defence version of the Tornado, even equipped with its present radar, is a formidable piece of defence equipment and that when the radar is made to function properly, it will be the finest of its type anywhere?

Of course, it is. The system in service, even with radar to the agreed interim standard, is enjoying a successful export demand.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards a noise evaluation survey in the vicinity of Tain bombing range, Ross-shire.

The noise survey at RAF Tain is scheduled to begin on 7 May and will continue for two weeks. A meeting has been arranged between officials of my Department and Ross and Cromarty district council to discuss the survey in detail and to select the location of measurement sites.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I must express some concern over the letter to me from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces some months ago. He said that this welcome and long overdue noise evaluation survey would take place, but I am concerned about the time scale that the Department seems to envisage. The Minister said that there will be a meeting. Is there now a revised time scale that may lead to decisions and, I hope, to grants for noise insulation being made earlier to the community? A recent example of the problem is Inver primary school in a village over which much low flying takes place. The infant pupils are housed in a Portakabin that has no sound-proofing, so the pupils suffer significant disruption from low-flying military jets. That has a detrimental educational effect and it terrifies the children.

The survey at Tain is being given a high priority amid an extensive programme to survey 40 military airfields. The proposal for the first survey in May should lead to a report being made in about spring next year. It takes time to evaluate the data accumulated by such surveys. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the survey will be prosecuted as fast as possible, although it depends, of course, on good flying weather.

Will my hon. Friend say something about the general attitude of the Ministry of Defence to compensating people in the vicinity of bombing and gunnery ranges? There are sites all round the country, including Lulworth gunnery range in my constituency. The people understand the need for noise and explosions, but they are always concerned about damage to their property and about compensation from the Ministry of Defence.

Limited resources of staff and equipment are available to undertake surveys. The decision to undertake such a survey at Tain shows the Ministry's wish to relieve the impact of noise on local communities and, where appropriate, to pay compensation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals have applied for premature discharge from each of the services in the last six months.

In the six months from August 1989 to January 1990 a total of 1,947 personnel from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, 2,461 Army personnel and 2,974 Royal Air Force personnel applied to leave prematurely.

Does the Minister accept that two steps need to be taken urgently? First, to deal with the uncertainty in the services, we should embark on a serious and thorough defence review; secondly, we should recognise that the anger and anxiety about pay has been exacerbated by the odious poll tax, as service men realise that the private and the general will pay the same.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we already survey the reasons why people leave early or have applied to do so. The main reasons are the effect on family life, the lack of job satisfaction and the expected prospects outside the services—the latter being all to do with the flourishing economy in which we live.

Will my hon. Friend arrange for commanding officers of the units in the forces to tell those serving under their command that there is still a worthwhile and vital job to be done in the armed service of the Crown, now and for many years hereafter?

I shall certainly make sure that my hon. Friend's sentiments are transmitted to the officers in command of the services. A great effort is made, when service men say that they want to leave, to talk to them and find out their reasons for leaving, and to do all that we can to persuade them to stay.

Does the Minister of State appreciate that when The Daily Telegraph, the day after the publication of the Defence White Paper, chooses as the subject of its leader the inescapable reality of the dissatisfaction in the ranks, there must be something seriously wrong with the morale, pay and conditions of the people who serve us? Can he do something about that quickly, provide decent pay and conditions and improve the morale of the forces on whom we depend?

It is clearly accepted by the armed forces that we are dealing with the problems of the future; they know that we shall come forward with plans before long. One question that I am often asked when I visit the armed forces is whether there is a chance of a Labour Government coming to power, because they know that that would have a much more dramatic effect on their future than anything else.

Will the review include the provision of, and help with, housing for service men who leave the service?

As my hon. Friend knows, much work has been done on housing for service men. We have introduced a scheme under which houses will be put into a housing association, which will in turn make them available. Progress is being made on the scheme and I hope that we can build on it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department has available in relation to SGL Defence Ltd.; what is the number of meetings which he has had with representatives of this company; and what were the topics discussed.

I understand that SGL Defence Ltd. is a recently formed public relations company which intends to specialise in defence. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend have had meetings with anyone representing the company.

I am grateful for that reply, but is the Minister aware that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence is a consultant to that company? Although he may not be transgressing any of the House's arrangements, may I take it that every time the Select Committee has met since January, the Chairman has declared an interest in SGL Defence Ltd. to Front-Bench spokesmen and to the Department? If not, how should I take the letter sent to me today by the Minister in which he says that the public interest is being well served? If Ministers have not been aware of this association, how is the public interest being protected? Are Ministers being circumspect in the evidence that they give to the Select Committee and in the information that they give to the individual concerned?

It is not for me to pass judgment on the conduct of the Chairman of the Committee or on the extent to which he is revealing or inadvertently concealing any interest. That is purely a matter for the House of Commons. All that I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House is that at no time in any of the meetings that I and my right hon. Friend have had with the Chairman of the Committee has he lobbied or proselytised for anyone.

Is the Minister aware that the brochure for SGL Defence Ltd. says:

"Our experience will greatly improve a company's capacity to influence operational requirements to win contracts in the face of national and international competition"?

Such companies tend to overrate their ability to persuade Ministers. Decisions on defence procurement matters are taken primarily on the basis of value for money. I am always prepared to listen to hon. Members about their constituency interests, but I would not pay the slightest attention to an hon. Member, however distinguished and however distinguished his position in the House, in any other context.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As these questions are House of Commons matters, is not it a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests, of which I am Chairman?

Absolutely so. I hope that when attacks of this nature are made on hon. Members, they are given notice.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What is the point of order?

With great respect, you, Mr. Speaker, above all others are well aware that I have pursued this matter through letters to you, to the Select Committee on Members' Interests and to the Committee of Selection. I gave notice to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). The reason why he is not here is that he is spending £15,000 of public money on a trip abroad.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been taken on basing the FI5E aircraft in the United Kingdom.

None, Sir.

Despite that monosyllabic, negative answer, is not it a fact that the United States has surveyed RAF Bentwaters between Sizewell and Bradwell and that work will begin in June? Is not the FI5E—a new nuclear strike bomber—being planned at a time when east-west tension is falling and defence cuts are occurring in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Why do we need another bomber of that nature after all this time and when tension is decreasing? Who is ordering it and why?

The United States air force may have surveyed the site with the intention of putting a simulator there. No decision has been taken to build the simulator and work will not start in June. That report is incorrect. Consideration is being given to the deployment of FI5Es at that site because we are looking to reallocate our resources in the light of flexible response, which has served us well in the past and, I am sure, will continue to do so.

Does my hon. Friend notice a degree of hypocrisy in calls for value for money from well-known tax-dodgers in the Opposition?

Order. It is for the Minister to answer, but such questions do not lead to good relations in the Chamber.

I do not wish to follow that sentiment too far, but hypocrisy is a problem that we have always found with Opposition Members.

Order. The Minister must withdraw that allegation.

I withdraw it at once.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions took place at the Anglo-German summit on 30 March on the effect of German reunification on British defence policy especially in terms of (a) land-based short-range nuclear missiles and (b) air-launched nuclear missiles.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us settle down.

Our discussions confirm that there was full agreement between the British and Federal German Governments on the following: that a united Germany should remain in NATO; that allied forces should remain in Germany; and that NATO nuclear weapons should continue to be based there. Chancellor Kohl made clear at the press conference his belief in the need for the full protection of NATO for the territory of Germany.

As the range of the Lance missile is 110 km and as, at its narrowest point, East Germany is 160 km wide, does the Secretary of State accept that those weapons, if they remained in West German territory, could be trained only on East Germany or Czechoslovakia? They would be of use further eastwards only if they were based in East German territory. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the report in The Guardian that the Government are now not insisting on renewing those weapons? Can he give an undertaking that they will be brought into the negotiations on removing nuclear missiles in Europe?

The hon. Gentleman could not have heard the end of my reply. At the press conference following the Anglo-German summit Chancellor Kohl and the Prime Minister reaffirmed the need for nuclear weapons. In my answer I said that nuclear weapons should continue to be based in Germany. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter was covered by the comprehensive concept agreed by the alliance in May 1989. Those matters do not need to be reviewed until 1992 and that is a sensible arrangement. Obviously these things must be worked out, but Chancellor Kohl has made it absolutely clear that he does not want Germany to be singularised in this respect. I have already quoted his belief in the need for the

"full protection of NATO for the territory of Germany."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those weapons play a particularly important political stabilising role vis-a-vis the unease on the other side of the iron curtain? As long as those weapons exist it will never be in anyone's interest to start a conventional war. It is no accident that we have had 45 years of peace in Europe while they have been around.

In one sense, we have had 45 years of confrontation, which looks as though it is coming to an end. It is hoped that there will be a much more sensible and constructive relationship between east and west. If that is achieved and the more evil aspects of communism are defeated, as they have been throughout east European countries, one must ask why that will have happened without a shot being fired and without the millions of casualties that marked the two previous world wars. It must be because we stood by the policy of nuclear deterrence and flexible response which have proved triumphantly successful.

Talking of defence prospects generally, as I suppose Ministers did at the summit, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just achieved the astonishing feat, in 1990, of producing a defence White Paper which, as far as I can discover, does not make a single reference to the non-proliferation treaty and the Government's obligations under it? Does that mean that the Government have given up any duty to carry out the obligations that the country undertook when making that treaty?

The right hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on what he has said and consider in particular the matters that we included in the White Paper, well before the events at Heathrow last week. We warned specifically of the current dangers posed by some signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, who appear to have embarked on an attempt to achieve nuclear technology, and of the dangers of expansion of missile capability among no fewer than 11 developing countries. The right hon. Gentleman's response to all such dangers is that we should give up our defences for a start.

Where does my right hon. Friend suppose that the nuclear missiles situated in Warsaw pact countries are pointed?

It is significant that in the past year—Mr. Gorbachev's fifth year of office—the Soviet Union has deployed 450 new nuclear missiles. Although I believe that that is not a new policy, but an old one which has not yet been corrected and stopped, the missile threat is greater than it has ever been. We hope and believe strongly that the intention to use them is the least that it has ever been, but those weapons are a powerful reminder of the dangers from the present hardware of the Soviet Union.

Does the Minister accept that the rationale for short-range nuclear weapons is that the west might be willing to indulge in nuclear war fighting? In the light of the changes in eastern Europe, will the Minister explain the circumstances in which he thinks that might be possible? Is not it time to recognise the political reality—that by 1992 there will be no political will to accept the deployment of a follow-on to Lance in Germany—and should not the Government's policy be based on that?

As I tried to make clear to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), that is covered in the comprehensive concept and now needs to be worked out in conjunction with our allies in NATO. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will at least support me on that. That is what we shall now do. Contrary to all the press preamble that there would be a great breakdown and strong division of views, the press reports of the Anglo-German summit on Friday were correct: there was an understanding between the United Kingdon Government and the Federal Republic about the right way forward on defence and related issues.

Is not it time that Opposition Members were reminded that it is entirely because of the defence policies of this country and of our allies that changes in the east are occurring? But we should not make commitments to reduce our offensive and defensive capability until there is stability, political growth and freedom in the eastern bloc.

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) fails to recognise that the position that he adopted, quite honourably, has been proved fundamentally wrong. We have been proved absolutely right in standing for strong defence, the nuclear deterrent and flexible response. The NATO Alliance policy has brought the chance of freedom and hope to millions of people. We should celebrate that fact today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he is undertaking in defence procurement policy in the light of recent reports by the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office.

I am satisfied that the existing policy of competition and a taut commercial approach to contracting will continue to give us value for money.

Despite the Minister's satisfaction, will he confirm that the development of new weapons has brought about overspending of nearly £2 billion and that nine contracts worth £4 billion will be delivered up to five years' late? Yet the Secretary of State for Defence assured the House in paragraph 302 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" that the policy pursued in recent years to provide for defence procurement on a cost-effective basis will be continued.

Many wild figures are circulating and the £2 billion which the hon. Gentleman quoted was the figure given in an article by a Mr. David Hencke in The Guardian. Mr. Hencke formerly styled himself as social affairs correspondent, so I suppose that we should make allowances for any difficulties he may get into when he treads in the more complex world of defence procurement. However, there is no justification for throwing around figures of that size which do not make allowance for inflation.

"None of the projects entering the statement for the first time in 1988 showed a variation in projected spend of 10 per cent. or more … The detrimental effects of older contracts would continue to be felt for some time".

Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes which the Government have introduced in defence procurement over many years have resulted in better equipment, better value for money and better export potential? In that context, will he confirm that Vickers has now submitted the details of the second milestone test for the Challenger 2 tank? When will he be able to make an announcement about that?

I shall be going to Vickers in the near future, and I expect that we shall have all the data we need to bring it forward in September.

The Minister is grossly unfair in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). The newspaper reporter did not concoct the figures in the article—they came from information provided by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman fails to mention any programmes that are effective and efficient and which run to time and to cost—Warrior and Skyguard are good examples. The hon. Gentleman will know, as will the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr Duffy), with his ministerial experience—that cost overruns are endemic to major weapons procurement, for the very good reason that throughout the development and production stages we have to take account of changes and progress in enemy systems and in counter-measures. It is not like a contract for a million pairs of boots; it is a race in which the parameters are constantly moving as technology advances.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the enhancement of short-range nuclear missiles in West Germany.

The Government are committed to the comprehensive concept agreed last May, when NATO reaffirmed the continued need for an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces which need to be kept up to date as necessary.

Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I supported the concept of enhancement a year ago. Following the recent dramatic political events in eastern Europe, however, is it not perfectly obvious that such an approach is now finally and firmly finished? Would not my right hon. Friend be wise to take the advice of former Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Carrington, who said in November, "This chapter is over"?

I do not think that I can add to what I have said in answer to earlier questions. My hon. Friend knows that the matter is well contained in the agreement with our allies in the comprehensive concept and agreed by Chancellor Kohl and the Prime Minister. The matter will have to be worked out in conjunction with our allies in NATO.

If the British Government insist that NATO should maintain short-range nuclear weapons in West Germany, what arguments will they use to deny the Soviet Union the right to have similar missiles in East Germany?

One of the biggest mistakes is to compare the position of NATO, whose forces are in western Europe by the invitation of the sovereign nations concerned, with that of the Warsaw pact where the unwelcomeness of Soviet troops is becoming increasingly apparent in every one of the countries involved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to retain trained service personnel.

We have introduced a wide range of measures to improve retention. We are looking particularly at ways in which disruption of family life can be reduced and at increasing job satisfaction through contracting out more mundane tasks. In addition, bonus schemes are to be introduced for certain groups of personnel from January 1991.

Does the Minister agree that to retain trained personnel it is critically important to reassure them that they have a continuing and necessary role to play in the defence of our country? Would not their morale slump dramatically if we were ever to adopt the defence policy advocated by the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I indicated in answer to earlier questions, there is a deep apprehension among the armed forces about the implications of Labour's defence policy—or what we have seen of it so far.

Would not it be a fillip for our armed forces if they were told that the Government's policy of mass extermination through the use of nuclear weapons was to be completely abandoned because, for once, Government had decided to support the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty by cancelling Trident and supporting the 137 non-nuclear nations which also support the treaty on the basis that nuclear powers such as the United Kingdom will be getting rid of their nuclear weapons—a promise which the Government have continually betrayed?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has held that view for a long time, in the teeth of the opposition of an almost overwhelming majority of people. In general, our service men are mindful of the fact that the Soviet Union remains a major nuclear power, and they are glad that Britain also has a nuclear deterrent. I am sure that they share my alarm at the fact that, despite the successes of the non-proliferation treaty, some countries are developing a nuclear capability. They, like me, would hate to face a future in which certain Third world countries had nuclear weapons while Britain had none.

Members of the defence study group yesterday attended a long meeting on board HMS Norfolk. Some of us were struck by the number of chief petty officers who intended to leave that ship, despite the fact that it is the newest contribution to our naval defence forces. What steps does my hon. Friend intend to take to retain those very experienced men, who have some 15 years' experience behind them and who are the backbone of the Royal Navy?

I have had similar reactions from senior naval petty officers. We are addressing a number of issues—for example, the review of allowances did not go down very well with the Royal Navy, and some of the worst aspects are now being reconsidered. We are also considering a number of other measures. We are mindful of the whole question of overstretch and the fact that people are working very hard and we are considering whether that could be wound down also.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the additional resources required to undertake a defence review.

As I told the House last month, we are examining options for change in the structure and deployment of our armed forces which will enable us to support and preserve the key elements of our defence provision in the light of changing international circumstances.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the White Paper published this week gives no sign of any changes in defence policy? Does he agree that the Government need to catch up with a changing world in relation to defence issues and that the White Paper does nothing to restore confidence in the Government among military personnel and the defence industry?

As I made clear in my main answer, we are considering options for change to determine where there may be opportunities for improvement and for adjusting to the new position. In my introduction to the White Paper, I said that it was a time of great hope but also of great uncertainty. As I stand here today, the Soviet Union has just closed the border between Lithuania and Poland. It is only a week since certain equipment, clearly intended for nuclear weapons, was removed from an aircraft at Heathrow. I do not think that the House needs any reminding of the dangers and uncertainties that still exist.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the defence White Paper and I welcome his announcement of an inquiry into the various options which might be open to us, depending on a number of difficult factors—notably the outcome of the CFE talks in Vienna. Is he aware that there is no mention in the White Paper of what we believe to be a growing need for helicopters in the Army? Can he reassure the House that the Ministry of Defence has not lost interest in that? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the White Paper's photographic embellishments, which we attribute to his skills.

Obviously, the provision of helicopters is a matter which we are dealing with in our options for change. I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about our approach. We hope that there will be considerable scope for economies. We hope that there will also be an opportunity for what I would call a services dividend to help to improve the conditions and alleviate some of the problems of service personnel. I make no apology to the House for our approach, which is not to announce, as the Labour party did, a £5 billion slash in defence expenditure across the board, but seriously to consider our future commitments and the threats that we might face. We wish to ensure that the defence of Britain is properly secured at all times.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that if we are to give him any credit for his review of options we are surely entitled to know what options are being reviewed? Do they cover troop reductions and, if so, what form do these take? What is the status of forward defence when the right hon. Gentleman seems not to know what the forward orders ought to be? Can he tell us what he means by a review of options in respect of flexible response when there are virtually no longer any weapons below strategic nuclear weapons available for such a doctrine? Lastly, can he assure the House that when the review of options has been completed, there will be a supplementary White Paper to give us the true picture of the Government's intentions with regard to the defence of this country?

I should make it clear that I do not associate the hon. Gentleman with the Labour party motion to cut defence expenditure. Although it was carried by a two to one majority by his party, I know that it was carried in the face of his opposition at that time. The points that the hon. Gentleman makes are perfectly fair. I wish to see how we can have a wider discussion of these options. I am giving thought to that, but I cannot say what the actual form or timing will be.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the policy and intention of his Department to purchase the European fighter aircraft for the RAF at the conclusion of the aircraft's development phase?

I can confirm that to my hon. Friend—the German Defence Minister, Dr. Stoltenberg, and 1 issued precisely such a statement at our previous meeting before the Anglo-German summit on Friday.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has considered any proposals on maritime confidence-building measures.

The greatest threat to stability in Europe comes from land-based forces. NATO's substantial proposals, tabled in Vienna in March 1989, have therefore concentrated on those.

Does the Minister realise that this grudging response to the widespread concern about the lack of safety with regard to nuclear weapons at sea will concern the British public? Surely he realises that nuclear weapons at sea could cause a nuclear war, and when will he do something about it?

The hon. Lady must realise that the Madrid mandate applied to maritime activities in terms which covered amphibious activities but did not cover other maritime activities.

Does the Minister recall that it had been argued by Ministers previously that the major obstacle to naval arms reduction talks was the growing Soviet submarine threat? To support that view, in the Defence Estimates 1988 we were told that the Soviets were producing a new submarine every six weeks; yet in yesterday's White Paper, at figure 2, we find that the number of Warsaw pact nuclear-powered submarines is now 85—four fewer than last year's estimate of 89. Now is undoubtedly an excellent time, in consultation with our NATO allies, to take up naval arms talks with a view to reducing naval forces, and the Secretary of State should press that view vigorously.

The reduction in the number of Soviet submarines had more to do with the fact that redundant ones are being replaced by more modern ones in terms of capability. I doubt whether it means a reduction. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is not right to compare our naval forces with those of the Soviet Union because we depend on our naval forces in the Atlantic for reinforcements, while the Soviets can reinforce over land. So we are not comparing like with like.

Order. Last Thursday the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) drew attention to discussions and undue noise just prior to Prime Minister's Question Time. This is very apparent today. I ask the House to listen to the Questions Time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the result of the East German election.

We warmly welcome the holding of democratic elections in East Germany and hope that the changes there will enhance the security of all European nations. The United Kingdom will continue to maintain its commitment to NATO, which provides the best guarantee of peace and security in Europe.

As a result of the election in East Germany, does the Minister agree that it is inconceivable that Germans would nuke fellow Germans? In that respect, will he make certain that British policy is to reject the Lance and not to improve it any further?

I am not sure whether the hon. Member was in the Chamber for the earlier questions on precisely this issue. He may be totally ignorant of the fact that we had the Anglo-German summit, when we had the pleasure of welcoming Chancellor Kohl who played such a signal part in the success of the centre right in the elections in East Germany, and in which my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor reached such a clear agreement with him on these issues.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the progress of the European fighter aircraft.

Development is proceeding satisfactorily. More than 85 per cent of the contracts for the development phase have already been let.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's faith in this project, the engines for which are built in my constituency? Did he notice the start of a campaign of denigration against the project, which was apparent among the Opposition in the last Parliament, and has he noticed that a similar attempt to unsettle the work force is already starting?

I deplore that. The Government are completely behind the project. That was confirmed as recently as last Friday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the German Defence Minister. We have no doubt whatever that the European fighter aircraft will be the dominant air superiority fighter in the year 2000.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

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. This evening I shall attend a state banquet in honour of the President of India.

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. In the light of recent shocking acts of violence, does my right hon. Friend agree it is the duty of all responsible political leaders not only to express words but to take all actions open to them to influence others to obey the law in every respect?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. No one is above the law. We must all obey it. That is what the rule of law is. All responsible leaders should encourage every other person to obey the law and take the requisite action to do so.

Is it not obvious to anyone who has observed the Prime Minister in recent days that she was rightly horrified by the injuries done to the public, the police and property last Saturday? Is it not equally clear, however, that she can barely conceal her delight at the diversion and uproar provided—[Interruption.] When it comes to extremists, the difference is that I fight them whereas the Prime Minister needs them.

The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense on both counts. Yes, I was deeply concerned at the scenes. I am deeply concerned that it is not the first time that the police have been injured in upholding the rights of ordinary citizens. During the coal dispute, 1,392 police were injured and at Wapping, 572 police were injured. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would remember, before he makes such accusations, the scenes outside Grunwick, at the Stockport Messenger, at Warwick, at Wapping and the scenes we saw last week and which we all condemn.

The Prime Minister exposes herself even more. By dredging through all those past acts, she demonstrates exactly the truth of what I said earlier. Those who affect to despise her policies most give the greatest comfort to the right hon. Lady, but she derides that comfort and encourages further uproar.

Nonsense—the right hon. Gentleman is trying far too hard and not succeeding. Does he condemn the 28 or 30 Members on his own side who seek to break the law? What does he say to people who throughout the years in the Labour party have not always said that it was necessary to obey the law? The hon. member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), speaking about rate capping, said:

"In the local authority situation do you obey the law or not obey the law? We don't have any firm principles in the party"—

"of how we might deal with the problem".

Would my right hon. Friend find time today to send a message to Mr. Mugabe to congratulate him on his re-election and on the considerable progress made in Zimbabwe in the past 10 years? Will she also express to Mr. Mugabe the great concern of a number of people in this country at the prospect of Zimbabwe sliding into a one-party state? Will she urge him to readopt the principles of the Lancaster house agreement which have so honourably served Zimbabwe in the past 10 years?

Yes, of course we congratulate President Mugabe. As my hon. Friend points out, the principles on which the election were fought were very different from the principles in the Lancaster house constitutional agreement, but Mr. Mugabe upheld that during the appointed time for the entrenched clauses. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very different when one has a one-party state. Obviously, those are the things that he is thinking of. May I also point out we help considerably in Zimbabwe as our armed forces train the Zimbabwe armed forces and the Mozambique armed forces to fight terrorism in that country.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

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

We hope that the right hon. Lady is better briefed today than she was last Thursday. Can she now explain to the House why 42,000 student nurses on low incomes should be subject to the full rate of poll tax?

The hon. Gentleman refers to 42,000 student nurses who are training and who receive a salary. Other student nurses who go on to Project 2000—which will very shortly be most student nurses—will receive a considerable bursary. Once they receive that bursary they will be treated as students and they will receive a rebate of 80 per cent. of the community charge. When nurses receive a salary during the course of their training they will be treated in exactly the same way as other young people who receive a salary in the course of their training. The hon. Gentleman might not like it, but that is the answer.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the unexpected and unplanned size of the community charge throughout the country the most logical way to assist everyone of every type and class might be to transfer one large chunk of Government-sponsored money such as education or teachers' salaries from the community charge to the income tax budget?

If we were to do that we might put a great deal of extra expenditure on to the taxpayer. Teachers' salaries might put 5p extra on to income tax without any guarantee of a reduction in the community charge because some local authorities would increase their expenditure and we would finish up with much higher income tax and the same community charge. First we must consider how to restrict extravagant spending by local authorities.

Does the Prime Minister realise that on the crucial question of Britain's full membership of the European monetary system she now risks the same deadly uncertainty over Government policy which cost her a Chancellor of the Exchequer and Britain a plummeting pound and high inflation only a few months ago? Does she disagree with the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom have recently said that the only obstacle that prevents Britain joining the exchange rate mechanism will be removed once high inflation is curbed?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that we stand by the Madrid conditions—which the hon. Gentleman can read as they have been given in Parliament many times—that first, there is no hindrance to the free movement of capital around the Community—some hindrances still remain; Italy has not removed all controls—also that we should have clear freedom of movement for financial services and, further, that we carry out stage one of the Delors report and that we get inflation down to the middle of the European Community. When those conditions are fulfilled we shall join. Considerable progress has been made as other members of the Community are now following our example by getting rid of many of the controls on the movement of capital—a process which we completed years ago.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the statement by Mr. Andy Murphy on BBC television that as leader of the punk anarchist group Class War he thought that those who attacked the police on Saturday were justified in so doing and that they are working class heroes? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Mr. Murphy is apparently employed by the London borough of Hackney as a finance officer? Does she not think that he should be dismissed?

All decent people find any such remarks utterly repugnant and support the police in their arduous task in the front line. Anyone who makes such a remark should have nothing to do with the democratic process because they must be flatly against it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1979 the cost to the taxpayer of running Downing street was £1¼ million and that 10 years later that cost has soared by more than 400 per cent.—a bigger percentage increase in expenditure than any local authority in Britain—and that that does not even include the cost of the gates? Is not the fortress of Madam Ceausescu therefore a suitable case for poll tax capping?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was better at mathematics. If he will make his comparisons on the same basis, he will find that our running costs compare very favourably both with central Government and with local authorities. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman would have preferred Downing street, which is an historic house, to be attacked and greatly damaged. Its repair would have cost much more than the gates.

With regard to the situation in Lithuania, and now Estonia, does my right hon. Friend agree that the secret protocol of 1939 makes the Baltic states a very special case and that it would be both immoral and illegal to ignore their continued appeals for self-determination and independence? Will not the CSCE summit later this year be the appropriate forum in which to resolve that matter?

I have indicated before in the House that this country never recognised the legality of the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union. Thus, we have never had any representation in those states and we do not recognise the legality of their annexation now. The Helsinki accord recognised the boundaries in fact but not in law. Two countries have made clear their views about self-determination. Nevertheless, it will be very wise to urge politicians in both Lithuania and Estonia, as well as in Moscow, to resolve their differences by dialogue and discussion. I am sure that that is in the interests of the countries concerned and ourselves.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that one year's experience of the poll tax in Scotland makes it abundantly clear that no amount of time can heal the running sore of a tax which robs the poor to pay the rich? Does the right hon. Lady recall telling me in a parliamentary answer this time last year that I should donate my unwanted and ill-gotten poll tax gains to charity? What does the right hon. Lady intend to do with the £1,500 that she will gain at the expense of the long-suffering people of London?

I now pay community charge in two places. The hon. Gentleman may take it from me that I shall continue to be generous with the money that I have—[Interruption.]

Order. It is unfair to others in the House.

Like the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I shall continue to be generous to the charities which I believe in and support with the moneys that I have, whether or not they are allowed for tax.