Object.

Object.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the involvement of armed forces officers in enforcing collection of the poll tax from armed services personnel refusing to pay.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that, recently, some squaddies were bullied into paying their poll tax by having their arm twisted by officers, who were acting on advice from the Government? Is not it squalid and nasty that American forces do not have to pay the poll tax when these young lads can be sent out to the Gulf to fight for Queen and country and that self-same Queen does not pay a penny piece in poll tax?

Officers in the armed forces advise service men to abide within the law when it comes to paying the community charge. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman does the same for his constituents.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that those members of the armed forces who have been assigned a duty in the Gulf will not suffer under the community charge because of their posting?

After a single man has been abroad for about 60 days, he no longer has to pay the community charge. For married men, the period is up to six months. That will cover a large number of service men who are serving in the Gulf.

Is the Minister aware of the sense of injustice felt by poll tax payers in the armed services, not least when the figures that he gave me in July of this year show that in the past 10 years, a private's pay has fallen by 4 per cent. while that of a general has increased by 45 cent., and that of a field marshal has increased by 86 per cent? Is not that an injustice to the lower ranks? Should not they be given some assistance?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the pay of service men is decided by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and that of generals is decided by the Top Salaries Review Body. We have merely accepted the recommendations made to us.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem, but that it is the reverse of that put forward by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Is he aware that service men on full-time courses of education can be deemed to be students, which means that they pay only 20 per cent. of the poll tax? Does my hon. Friend further agree that that is not fair on a constituency such as Gosport, which has lost £270,000 as a result of that concession? Will he look at the situation with a view to changing it?

My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment are aware that people who are judged to be in full-time education need pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. It is obviously up to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he wishes to, to change the legislation to deal with that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been removed from Greenham Common since the byelaws were declared invalid.

Although the House of Lords ruled on 12 July that the Greenham Common byelaws were invalid, there can be no general right of access to any operational RAF station and any persons entering without authority will be removed as trespassers and for their own safety. Between 12 July and 23 October, 532 such cases were recorded at Greenham Common, but the number of individuals involved is much smaller.

We all understand that in this country no one can be arrested or detained except under the law. Now that the byelaws in Greenham Common have been declared illegal, that means that thousands have been wrongly arrested, detained and charged. More seriously, since the byelaws were declared illegal people are still being detained and removed from the base in vans. The Minister has said that that is allowed, but under what law is it allowed? His declaration does not make it right or lawful.

The hon. Lady does not seem aware of the laws of trespass, which are such that if someone trespasses, he can be asked to remove himself. If he fails to do so, such force as is necessary can be used to make sure that he is removed from the premises. That is the law under which people are acting at Greenham Common at the moment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Greenham Common women contributed nothing to the end of the cold war, and the decision to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles was a much more fundamental reason for the ending of the cold war?

That is absolutely right. We should pay great tribute to the diplomacy and negotiations that took place between the United States and the Soviet Union which led to the intermediate nuclear forces agreement and to the removal of those missiles from Greenham Common next year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of NATO to discuss the organisation's future role.

I next expect to meet Dr. Woerner at the nuclear planning group and defence planning committee meetings in December. I would expect to discuss with him a wide range of defence issues.

When the Secretary of State next meets the Secretary-General, will he make it abundantly clear that closer European defence collaboration is practical common sense but that it must be kept firmly within the NATO framework? Will he particularly reject the current daydreaming about some European Community defence force, which can only undermine the transatlantic relationship which has been so successful over the past 40 years?

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that at the very successful NATO summit in London, it was specifically agreed that a key pillar of NATO for the future would be the continuing transatlantic connection. United States forces based in Europe are a very important element of that.

Given NATO's magnificent record in maintaining peace in Europe since the second world war, would my right hon. Friend consider using NATO as a framework in a non-military sense as well as a military sense in ensuring continuing United States involvement in the future of a changing Europe?

Certainly, the NATO summit envisaged continuing discussions in the North Atlantic Council about a political dimension as well, but four of the key pillars of the alliance for the future shape of NATO are an integrated military structure, an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, United States forces—including nuclear—based in Europe and a united Germany in NATO.

Now that there is movement towards political union in Europe, will the Government encourage the Government of the Irish Republic to join NATO?

I am not sure that that arises on this question.

Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on what discussions he has had about the further out-of-area role for NATO when he next meets the Secretary-General?

At present the NATO countries are separately involved in an out-of-area role in the Gulf. Hon. Members interested in defence matters are watching with great interest to see how well the various structures perform. We are co-operating in the Western European Union—that is one aspect of our activities in the Gulf. Our working relationship with the United States clearly benefits from our previous experiences working together within NATO.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of British forces in the Gulf to the end of the financial year.

The full operating costs of the operation in the Gulf to the end of the financial year are, in current circumstances, expected to exceed £600 million.

Whatever the cost, will the Secretary of State ensure that it is not paid for in human lives? Will he stress to all concerned the need for patience, to give sanctions a full opportunity to work? Will he also seek to ensure, bearing in mind public opinion, that no pre-emptive strike is made by forces under United States command?

We are seeking to end Iraq's aggression by peaceful means, which is why we, together with many other countries, are throwing our efforts fully behind the United Nations embargo. In that way, we hope that the aggression can be ended without conflict. But, as was said by the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), in our debate on the Gulf crisis, it would be extremely unwise to discard the military option. It is important that the message is borne in every day on Saddam Hussein that, one way or another, he will lose. His understanding of that reality offers the best hope of the matter being settled peacefully.

In view of the fact that the Treasury funded the Falklands conflict separately from the defence budget, what success is my right hon. Friend having in persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a similar arrangement in meeting the cost of our troops in the Gulf?

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for their help. I made it clear that we do not know at this stage precisely what will be the additional cost over our continuing defence budget, but I outlined the gross cost in answering the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). I have made it clear to my right hon. Friends that we shall seek to cover what we can in the defence budget, but they have assured me of their sympathetic consideration of the extra costs involved in our essential defence of freedom and our stand with other allies against aggression.

We are pleased that the Secretary of State can meet the extra cost from within his existing budget.

indicated dissent.

Or if not, that the right hon. Gentleman will bring a supplementary budget before the House. Has the Secretary of State held discussions with any countries that have an equivalent interest to ours, both within the Gulf area and outside it, as to what contribution they will make?

To avoid any misunderstanding, I must make it clear that I shall cover what costs I can from within the defence budget, but I certainly anticipate that it will be necessary to bring a supplementary budget before the House, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

I share my right hon. Friend's desire for the crisis to be resolved diplomatically, but obviously it could turn into a conflict. What contingency plans has my right hon. Friend made for what he anticipates will be the likely level of casualties in the event of a conflict?

I shall not answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question, but we are making appropriate arrangements for medical facilities. Some are already established because we have a substantial number of troops in the Gulf, and they never travel without having appropriate medical facilities. We are seeking to ensure that adequate facilities exist to meet any situation that may arise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current development position and cost of the Trident nuclear missile programme.

The Trident programme continues to time and to budget towards its in-service date of the mid-1990s.

Will the Minister confirm that there has been a delay in purchasing the missiles? Since that appears to be the case, would it be better to cancel Trident and save £9·5 billion, to ensure that the strategic arms reduction talks are successful, by concluding those negotiations, and to strengthen the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which, as the Minister knows, has been signed by 139 non-nuclear nations, which have agreed not to deploy or manufacture nuclear weapons? If the Minister repeats the arid nonsense that nuclear weapons keep the peace, will he distribute them to the middle eastern countries so that he can apply the theory there?

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for 16 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Off and on."]—except for a brief gap when he was looking for a more amenable electorate. During that period he has asked almost the same question throughout, and he should not be surprised if he gets almost the same answer. The delay in purchasing the missiles will not affect the in-service date.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely foolish for us to give up our nuclear capability, in view of the fact that many countries have a chemical capability and a potential nuclear capability?

Of course, it would be entirely wrong to give up the capability, to which the present decrease of confrontational tension is largely attributable, at the very moment when proliferation among more widely diffused and less responsible regimes looks imminent.

Following on from the question put by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), are the Government considering putting forward the argument that nuclear weapons deter chemical weapons? If that is the case, are they saying that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons if the Iraqis use chemical weapons?

We are saying that the nuclear weapon is an essential part of deterrent capability, and its use is a matter of judgment for the Government, on the advice of the operational commanders on the spot.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reassessment has been made of the options outlined in his recent defence review, in the light of developments in the Gulf.

I have not reassessed my proposals in my statement on "Options for Change", since those proposals specifically addressed the need to retain sufficient defences to be able still to respond flexibly and effectively to new and unexpected threats.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the international milieu is dangerous, that it has been in the past, and that it will be again in the future? Does he further agree that those who advocate making maximum use of the so-called peace dividend should sit back and consider what the ramifications may be in the future? It may well be that we would not be able to react in the same way as we have to the gangsterism in Kuwait. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to the House that he will fully consult service chiefs on any cuts that may be considered in the future?

I can certainly give that assurance to my hon. Friend. On 25 July I said:

"We shall therefore continue to need a robust defence capability as our insurance against the unexpected."

"are not something that can be lightly discarded and then easily recalled when they may suddenly be needed."—[Official Report, 25 July 1990; Vol. 177, c. 470–72.]

When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to give us more information than hitherto on the implications of "Options for Change" for NATO strategy? What changes will there be to forward defence as a result of "Options for Change"?

As was made clear at the NATO summit, there will clearly be scope for change in forward defence, with greater mobility and greater flexibility likely to feature as the emerging strategy, which is under discussion at the moment within NATO, following the London summit. I shall not repeat it all to the House, but I set out the pillars on which the NATO summit agreed that the review should continue. Certainly there will be scope for change. Discussions are taking place now to see how we can adapt most effectively to the new situation while ensuring that we maintain strong and credible defence in Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons of the Gulf that comes through clearly is the need for Royal Air Force pilots to fly low and fast and to be able to do so in operational conditions at short notice? Is not that one lesson that we should never forget?

My hon. Friend is accurately aware of the needs of the Royal Air Force. What he says is true. Part of the capability of the Tornado GR1 fleet very much depends on its ability to fly low and to survive. It is essential, therefore, that if the fleet is asked to do that, it should have had adequate opportunity to train for it.

When will the Secretary of State produce the detailed figures that were so evidently missing from his 25 July statement? Does he agree that it is not good enough just to sit back after making that statement—that he has to anticipate what is likely to happen now that the conventional forces in Europe agreement is almost signed? Will there be a second statement before too long, which will include the figures and state what further defence cuts the Government think should be made further into the 1990s?

That is a bit rich. I remember that the hon. Gentleman told me at the time that he was surprised by how detailed my 25 July statement was. The work is going ahead. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a copy of what I said at the time. It spells out precisely what we regard as the Royal Navy's requirements in terms of numbers of frigates, the Trident submarine fleet, minehunters and hunter-killer submarines. I went right through the list. I shall not weary the House with in now; it is all in Hansard. That work is goind ahead without, I am pleased to say, amendment, even in the light of the new developments that we face. We put forward those proposals to ensure that the Royal Navy's requirements are met. That has to be compared with the Opposition's stance. Twice at their party conferences they have approved expenditure plans that would make quite impossible the present support that we are giving to the allied effort in the Gulf.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the pay and conditions of United Kingdom service men and women in the Gulf.

My right hon. Friend has already announced measures that will ensure that no service men or women will suffer a net reduction in pay and allowances as a result of service in the Gulf. Many of our service personnel in the Gulf are living in difficult conditions, but I am satisfied that the services are doing their very best to ensure that the general welfare and morale of our troops is maintained.

It is noticeable that the goalposts have shifted since 18 October. On that date the Minister said in a written reply that no one serving with the forces in the Gulf would lose out financially as a result of that service. We hear now that that relates only to pay and conditions. Are not service personnel in the Gulf obliged to pay an additional loading on life assurance premiums, most of which they are obliged to meet out of their own resources? Should not it be the case that no person serving with the forces in the Gulf is out of pocket financially? Should not the Minister deal urgently with the matter?

Service men are faced with additional life assurance premiums, but the vast bulk of the money is now being found by the Ministry of Defence.

Will my hon. Friend confirm the high morale among both service men and British civilians employed on defence contracts in the Gulf? Will he further confirm, as he will have understood from his visit to the Gulf, that military personnel there say that, if it came to a war, they would rather be attacked by chemical weapons than by conventional weapons because of the highly efficient state of our nuclear, biological and chemical equipment that provides protection against chemical warfare? I have learnt that that equipment is the envy of our American allies.

I must confess that I did not find any service men who made a comparison between wanting to be attacked by chemical weapons or by conventional weapons. I suspect that if it came to a war, they would be in danger of being attacked by both sorts of weapons. The morale of the service men whom I met was very high. I found that they had great confidence in the NBC clothing and equipment that we provided. They regard it as being some of the best equipment available in the world to any soldiers. As for civilian employees, I was told by the Saudis that they were encouraged by the support that they were getting, particularly from the employees of British Aerospace.

Does the Minister accept that I shall try to put this issue very gently to him? I accept that no service men will be worse off, in net terms, but yesterday I had a telephone call from the wife of a naval service man. She said that her husband and others are severely stretched financially, to the extent that some of the naval personnel are giving blood for money in order to be able to telephone home from the Gulf. That is disturbing and I trust that the Minister will investigate all the circumstances that are imposing onerous burdens on our service men in the Gulf.

Our initial concern was that people would be worse off as a result of moving from Germany to the Gulf and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ensured that that will not happen. On general rates of pay in the Navy, on the whole the Armed Forces Pay Review Body addresses that problem and ensures that rates in all three services are comparable with civilian rates of pay. That is a much bigger issue and is addressed every year by the AFPRB.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the field conditions applying to the service men in the Gulf would apply in any case if they remained in Germany and were out on exercise? That being so, will my hon. Friend assure the House that their families will not suffer the loss of the local overseas allowance, which may otherwise be the case?

The local overseas allowance payable in Germany reflects the higher cost of living that people have to bear as a result of being in Germany. That higher cost of living does not apply in Saudi Arabia. It is, therefore, sensible to phase out the local overseas allowance only when people move to an area where the costs are not so high. Having said that, many of those who have moved were previously paying accommodation and food charges which, under field conditions, they do not have to pay. That is why we have taken the overall question to assess whether, in terms of net take-home pay, they are worse off than they were before and we are ensuring that they will not be.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for his Department's forward planning of the forthcoming completion of the START process.

We welcome the prospect of a START treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, reductions in United States and Soviet strategic arsenals would have to go much further before we could consider how best to contribute to the strategic arms control process. Ministers have made clear in the context of the "Options for Change" review that we shall require a four-boat Trident force.

Does the Minister agree that in view of the economic recession, which was confirmed today by the Confederation of British Industry's report, we cannot afford to spend the £600 million plus that we are spending in the Gulf or the billions that we shall be spending on nuclear weapons, particularly at a time when the United States and the Soviet Union are reducing theirs? Why have the Government not offered to include Trident and Polaris in START? Why are we the only country that is not prepared to make any concessions in that way?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we regard the Trident missile system as the minimum deterrent that we can have if we wish to remain in the nuclear deterrent business. We have made it clear as a Government that we feel that nuclear deterrence is an essential part of the defence of the islands of this country. Muddle and confusion exist among the Opposition. Labour is currently committed to negotiating away our independent nuclear deterrent at a time when, regrettably, in other parts of the world such as Iraq nuclear capability is being produced. Labour will therefore have to face the accusation in this country that Labour is negotiating away our nuclear deterrent while Saddam Hussein is developing his.

With regard to START, will my hon. Friend confirm that it will be possible for the United States and the Soviet Union to destroy literally thousands of their missiles without making any difference to the nuclear balance?

That is right. That is basically the understanding of the START agreement as far as it has got. There will be a radical reduction in arsenals on both sides. If the Labour party insists on negotiating away our deterrent in return for some balancing reductions by the Soviet Union, it will still leave the Soviet Union with a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. [Interruption.]

Order. I ask hon. Members to desist from holding private conversations. It is difficult to hear.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reassessment he has made of the effect of nuclear radiation on service men and women, ex-service men and women and others employed or fulfilling a contract with his Department.

The Ministry of Defence, along with the rest of the United Kingdom nuclear industry, relies on the estimates of radiation risk derived by the International Commission for Radiological Protection, which is in the process of completing a re-evaluation of levels of risk.

In February, I drew the Ministry's attention to the fifth report of the United States Research Council on the biological effects of ionising radiation. I do not know whether the Ministry has bothered to study it, but, as a result of that report, the United States is compensating its nuclear test veterans for two more forms of cancer, in addition to the 11 types for which it has been compensating veterans for some time. When will British nuclear test veterans receive the same justice as their American counterparts, or does the Minister intend to keep his head buried in the sand until all those concerned are dead?

No, we take these matters very seriously and are happy to consider any new evidence that comes to the fore. We have great confidence in the safety of our working practices.

Does my hon. Friend accept that I and my colleagues from the Medway towns are most grateful for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt so far with our request for an inquiry into the circumstances of people who worked on nuclear submarines at the dockyard in Chatham and have died of cancer? May I take it from his first answer that when the report is to hand he may be able to tell us whether there is to be an inquiry, as we should like?

Obviously, we have much sympathy for the people affected in my hon. Friend's area, and we hope that Mr. Molinari will make a speedy recovery. We shall consider all the evidence. We believe that our working practices are safe. It may be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that we shall be considering a no-fault compensation scheme.

We welcome the new Minister to his post, but I warn him that during his short period of office this matter will not go away. He is clearly not accepting or facing his responsibilities to nuclear test veterans who have suffered over the years without compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) said, many loyal and brave soldiers who were present during nuclear tests have already died. Why can the Australians and the United States pay compensation while the British Government spend their cash on surveys deliberately and continually to delay matters? It is a disgrace and an absolute outrage, but above all it is a betrayal of a special group of British citizens.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial kind words, but he has his facts wrong. Where people can show reasonable doubt, we pay; so far, six people have received war pensions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications for the United Kingdom of the forthcoming completion of the CFE talks.

The consequent improvements to European security and stability will be of substantial benefit to the United Kingdom.

May I press the Minister to be more specific about Britain's contribution to the CFE treaty? Further to the various answers given today, will he make it clear whether the cuts that he proposes will be greater or less than those outlined in "Options for Change"? Specifically, will stage 2 include dual-capable aircraft, which the Government resisted at stage 1 but some of which will be cut in "Options for Change"?

We obviously took into account the agreements in CFE when we worked out "Options for Change". As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, many of the reductions that we anticipate have to be tied in with reductions under the CFE agreement. That agreement has not yet been signed, although we hope that it will be before the end of the year.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in any agreement that may be signed it is important to ensure that if the numbers in the front line of key equipments are reduced their capability must be enhanced? Above all, will my hon. Friend ensure that the United Kingdom modernises its helicopter force, as the helicopter is a versatile instrument which can be rapidly deployed to the Gulf or elsewhere and is important for the future?

I very much take my hon. Friend's point on that. There is, of course, no evidence that the Soviet Union is reducing its technological capability in this area, and so long as it continues to bring in improvements to its defence equipment, it is essential that we do the same.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of British forces in the Gulf to the end of the financial year.

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes).

Has the attention of the Secretary of State been drawn to the estimates emerging from Washington of 30,000 service casualties within the first 12 days of conflict? Has his attention also been drawn to the statement by Jean-Pierre Chevênement, his French opposite number, that in event of war 100,000 people might be killed? Is the Secretary of State also aware that if the American and British Governments reject the rising world demand for a peaceful settlement—which was echoed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—and decide to launch a pre-emptive strike, the responsibility for those deaths will rest on the American and British Governments who launched the attack?

The right hon. Gentleman was sitting here when I answered the previous question. He knows perfectly well what I said then, which was that we want to see this matter settled by peaceful means. No sane person wishes to see conflict and casualties if they can be avoided, but the responsibility that has been recognised by an overwhelming majority in this House—and which was recognised by the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—was that it was right to send forces to the Gulf and that it is right to give the clearest possible warning to Saddam Hussein that, one way or another, he will lose. That message, clearly delivered, without prevarication and without uncertainty, is the best possible hope for a peaceful resolution of this matter.

In reply to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend said that he expected and hoped that if it came to an overrun on defence costs, the Treasury would give sympathetic consideration to such an overrun. Can he assure us that our service chiefs will not be inhibited in spending whatever is necessary to ensure that our troops in the Gulf have the best equipment available to them?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reply in this respect on behalf of the Government. The Government are clear that we shall make whatever contribution is appropriate to freedom and justice in the Gulf, and that we shall make our contribution to the ending of the aggression. We see that as the overwhelming priority. We shall also ensure that our armed forces who go there have the equipment that they need to do the job that we ask of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any assistance, including training, has been provided to Cambodians engaged in resistance to the Phnom Penh regime; and if he will make a statement.

As the hon. Gentleman will know better than I, there was a long debate in the House on Friday on Cambodia, during which these matters were fully aired. There is nothing that I can add to what the Government said then, other than to repeat that persistent claims from the hon. Gentleman and from other Opposition Members that we have supported the Khmer Rouge are completely unfounded. We never have provided, and will never provide, any form of assistance, military or otherwise, to that organisation.

Why not tell the truth——

Withdraw.

Order. That is okay.

that between July 1985 and October 1989 British service men based in Thailand were training Khmer terrorists?

The hon. Gentleman well knows that we do not comment on matters of that kind.

Will my hon. Friend give every assistance, including training, to those in Cambodia who are seeking to remove the mines which were laid by all sides in that terrible conflict and which are causing such devastation to the people of that sad country?

As I have said already, we do not comment on training given to Governments. However, we have already made it clear that we have given no assistance whatever to the Khmer Rouge and that that organisation has had no support whatever from us.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

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 hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Will the Prime Minister clarify the Government's policy on Europe? The deputy Prime Minister has said that it offers recombination of sovereignty for more effective partnership. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the ecu could develop into a single currency. Was the Prime Minister surprised that in Rome, by 11 votes to one, her European colleagues preferred her Cabinet colleagues' expression of belief to that which she expressed?

We shall co-operate fully, as a nation state with its own Parliament, with the other 11 countries in the European Community. It is not our policy to have a single currency imposed upon us and I believe that that meets the views of Parliament and people. We have made different proposals for a further stage which would involve a hard ecu, and the hon. Gentleman is very much aware of those proposals.

I wonder whether our European partners would profit from a reading of British history. If they read G.M. Trevelyan's work "England under the Stuarts", would not they see that Britain's principal contribution to European civilisation has been parliamentary democracy, just as France's was the revolution and Germany's the reformation——

Order. Let us come to the question.

Will my right hon. Friend rest assured that she has the full support of Conservative Members in fighting for Britain's traditional sovereignty in the control of our economy?

I believe that the traditions and example of this House have gone the world over with admiration. I believe that they have not only served this country well, but they have served Europe well as this House kept sitting when the lights of Europe went out.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity strongly to condemn those Conservatives who have publicly insulted her deputy Prime Minister by calling him "irresponsible and unconstitutional" simply for expressing his views on the future of the European Community?

Conservative Members do not need a licence from me to express their views—unlike a previous Labour Prime Minister who said that Labour Back Benchers and Front Benchers did need a licence from him.

That certainly does not answer the question. On an issue as vital as this, does not the Prime Minister owe it to her deputy Prime Minister to state unequivocally that those who have personally and viciously attacked him do not have her support? Does she not owe it to her deputy to say that he enjoys her full confidence in all matters?

My right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister is too big a man to need a little man like the right hon. Gentleman to stand up for him.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that other European countries hold equally strong views about the protection of their particular national identities but are more inhibited than my right hon. Friend in expressing them?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that most people feel rather strongly about their national identities. When it comes to getting down to detailed discussion, we shall see those differences emerge. They do not emerge when we are talking about generalities.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that there is unacceptable discrimination in the prison system? How is it that, just a few weeks after being sentenced for his part in the Guinness affair, Mr. Gerald Ronson was allowed out of prison in a chauffeur-driven car to consult his private doctor and to have a meal with his family and business associates? Does not that fly in the face of the sentiments expressed by her right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who said at the Tory party conference that there would be stiffer sentencing and that

"12 months means 12 months."?

If the hon. Gentleman has any specific complaints to make about a specific case he should make them to the proper authorities.

Has my right hon. Friend read the article in today's Daily Mail about the Nissan car plant in Sunderland which is not only increasing its car exports to Germany but expects to export cars to Japan next year? Is that not proof positive that when there is close co-operation between workers and management Britain can compete with anyone in the world?

Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The record of that car plant is quite outstanding. It is a combination of British workmanship and Japanese management which is producing excellent cars and also exporting them to increase our exports to other countries.

In view of the Prime Minister's frequent pronouncements about national sovereignty, will she reflect that Britain is not a nation but a union of nations, just as the European Community is a community of nations? Is she aware that most of us want to see both the union and the Community flourish, and cannot understand why the cuckoo in Downing street is doing so much to destroy both that Community and that union?

Of course we wish to see both the United Kingdom and the European Community flourish, and the Government and the country have done a great deal to ensure that the Community does flourish. For example, in spite of having achieved a very good financial deal from the Community—much better than the one that Labour left us with—we still pay £2·2 billion to the Community, which is rather more than the £1·7 billion that we have left to pay to the third world. That is an excellent record of gift to the European Community.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the economic and industrial equation that an order equals production equals employment equals profits equals further investment? Will she emphasise to the nation from the Dispatch Box the importance of negotiations with management and trade unions so that they do not price themselves out of the initial ingredient which is the order in sterling?

I agree that it is absolutely vital that manufacturers keep their costs down and do not price themselves out of their market. Productivity is the key, and that is not only a question of wages but of keeping up investment and very good management and very few restrictive practices. I think that we are reaching that position in British industry now, and that augurs well for the future.

Why does not the United Nations consider sending into Kuwait an unarmed contingent of people to set up collection points for the evacuation of those people in hiding? Is it not time that the western world and those who support this initiative ensured that we rather than Saddam Hussein were seen to be taking the initiative?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the extensive resolution passed in the United Nations yesterday which deals not only with compensation for damage in Kuwait but with the question of embassies and hostages there. It utterly condemns the hostage taking in Kuwait and calls upon Saddam Hussein to release those people immediately.. It also requests that the Secretary General use his good offices to that end.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

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

Is my right hon. Friend at all surprised that the Italians are pressing for speedy monetary union when they have a deficit of £80 billion, when their national debt is almost equal to their gross domestic product and they want to be bailed out by the Bundesbank? Will my right hon. Friend therefore express the view of the majority of hon. Members in this House and the majority of people in this country—that she should back the market but for heaven's sake stick with the pound?

It is important that we all fulfil our present commitments before taking on new ones. Clearly, some countries in the Common Market would like to hand over some of their financial affairs to a European central bank and divest their Parliaments of much of their powers. That is not our view. We do not wish to hand over further powers from this Parliament to other bodies. As my hon. Friend has said, it is also important that we complete the single market. In that respect, this country has an excellent record. There are only 15 directives that we have not implemented. Italy has not yet implemented 62 of the directives.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

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

In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister give some consideration to the by-elections pending in Bradford, Bootle and Paisley? Can she confirm that her electoral strategy will be to blame her candidates?

Our electoral strategy will be to point out that after 11 years of Conservative government this country has the highest standard of living ever known, that since we were returned at the last election, taxation has been reduced to 25p in the pound at the standard rate and 40p in the pound at the top rate, that the earnings rule for pensioners has been abolished, that we have the most prosperous social services and health service that this country has ever known, and that it is worth sending back Conservative Members of Parliament from those by-elections.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

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

As next month Her Majesty the Queen is to visit Kneller Hall at Twickenham to mark the completion of the restoration of the Royal Military school of music, which trains the finest Army bands which are the envy of the entire world, is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are proud of the Queen, of Kneller Hall and of the Prime Minister and hope that the Prime Minister will make certain that the head of the Queen remains permanently on the coinage of the realm?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of his fight to keep Kneller Hall in his constituency. With regard to that and the rest of his question, which was phrased so ingeniously—and so say all of us on this side of the House.