To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the impact upon local economies following reductions in forces following "Options for Change".

Local economic and environmental factors will be taken fully into account.

I thank the Minister of State for that informative reply. I welcome the defence cuts, but I am concerned that the Government may implement them using solely market forces and a laissez faire policy. As the Government have at last accepted what we have been urging on them for some time—that there are real benefits in the peace dividend—will the Minister go the extra mile with us and accept that the reductions must be planned? Will he set up an arms conversion agency to plan them, so that when cuts are made in factories such as Radway Green in north Staffordshire and around the country the real benefits and skills there are used for constructive and positive purposes?

The cuts are being framed not around market forces but around the minimal requirement to ensure that this country is adequately defended against our enemies. The question of an arms compensation fund or conversion agency, or whatever Labour Members call it from time to time, is a hoary attempt by the Labour party to introduce interventionism and Government subsidy. What you are asking for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I meant "you" plural. Opposition Members seen to be aiming for a scheme whereby good taxpayers' money is used to counter-guess the commercial judgment of arms companies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Leeds there is great pride in the skill and commitment at the Vickers tank factory in Barnbow? Will he confirm that the Challenger tank is performing according to requirements in the middle east and that the company is giving full support to British forces there? When will he be able to reach a decision on the Chieftain replacement?

I can confirm what my hon. Friend said. Challenger is performing extremely well in the region. I see the operational readiness figures every month, which show that it has averaged more than 90 per cent. throughout the period that it has been there, which included several difficult and strenuous exercises. Generally, it has taken part to the maximum in the preparations and the manoeuvres that are taking place at the moment.

The Minister is on record as saying that he gives no thought to ethics in regard to defence procurement. Does that now apply to job losses in defence? Is his attitude just to leave defence cuts to market forces, putting thousands of people out of jobs? Is not it clear that the Minister does not have any ethics in relation to this aspect of defence procurement?

What a feeble question. The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the much better articulated question that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) asked. I have told him that, at all times, our first consideration must be to ensure that the country is properly defended. All of us agree that job losses are to some extent inevitable as defence orders for particular items of equipment contract. Those companies are extremely successful. Their commercial judgment will govern their decisions and I have every confidence that in the long term they will benefit from conversion to peaceful activity.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that whatever the outcome of the "Options for Change" policy, there will, in the near future, be a need to buy a new main battle tank for the Army? Can he confirm that Challenger not only performed satisfactorily in Saudi, but has met all the milestones of development of Challenger 2 satisfactorily, on time and within cost? Does he accept that it would be wholly wrong economically, militarily and industrially to buy foreign tanks when we have a successful British product available?

I am aware of all those factors and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of them. I can confirm that all the milestones have largely been met.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Secretary-General of NATO to discuss the role of nuclear weapons.

I shall meet the Secretary-General of NATO when I am in Brussels later this week for NATO ministerial meetings. Nuclear issues will be among the topics that will be discussed.

Does the Secretary of State recall last year's NATO commitment to start negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons? Will he move speedily to support the mandate for talks to bring about the third zero, bearing in mind our commitment, under the non-proliferation treaty, to negotiate for disarmament?

The NATO review is continuing. The hon. Lady will know that, after the successful NATO summit in London in July, it was agreed by all the parties present that the alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, and that work is continuing. The House will welcome the fact that, clearly, there will be a substantial reduction in nuclear warheads in Europe, but not on a unilateral basis.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members fully support the Ministers' statement earlier this year? We accept the mix of nuclear weapons and we understand that that will be necessary as long as the Soviet Union—and not only the Soviet Union—retains a nuclear capability and to ensure that we can defend ourselves against threats from outside the NATO area.

I well understand why my hon. Friend makes that shrewd and perceptive point. Although we certainly wish to see far fewer nuclear weapons in the world, his point has great validity.

What assurances will the Secretary of State be able to give the secretary-general when he meets him about the effectiveness of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent? In the light of the reasons for the scrapping of Warspite, will he be able to assure the secretary-general that the United Kingdom is capable of keeping one submarine on station at all times?

That is our determination, as we made clear to the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had recently concerning the effect of the community charge upon service men.

I have had discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.

My hon. Friend is well aware of my long-standing concern about the effect of the community charge on service men. Can he confirm that certain councils are not following Government guidelines to waive community charge for service men who are serving in the Gulf? Does he agree that that is disgraceful?

Indeed, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. The Government have now advised local authorities to remove personnel who have been posted to the Gulf or to other overseas locations from the community charge register. I am happy to say that the great majority of councils have complied with that advice. However, Gosport and Helston councils have refused to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is far too important an issue to be left to the whim of local government? Is he aware that local councils will be looking at such community charge payers as a further means of increasing the money that they will be able to spend and that they will be reluctant to exclude tens of thousands of service men from paying the community charge year after year? Should not the community charge be paid directly from the Ministry of Defence?

My hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment are looking at the whole question of the future of the community charge and I am sure that they will take the position of service men into account. On the question whether people are removed from the register when they are posted abroad, we would appeal to the public-spiritedness of the local authorities concerned. It is very disappointing that those two councils have not complied.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the development European fighter aircraft are now under construction; and when he expects the completed prototype to undertake its first flight.

All eight of the development European fighter aircraft are now under construction. The first prototype is due to fly in late spring 1992 in Germany.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, by the late 1990s, the European fighter aircraft will be a vital replacement for the Phantom aircraft, which will be obsolete by then? In view of that fact, and in view of the recurrent rumours that we hear about the German Government's position, can my hon. Friend give us a categorical assurance that the aircraft will, indeed, reach the production stage?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The aircraft should ensure our air superiority in the late 1990s and in the early part of the next century. My hon. Friend cited the Phantom as an example, but the EFA will be superior to all existing fighter aircraft, including American F-18 and F-15 enhancements. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks: the British Government are fully behind the project and intend to see it completed.

But is not the EFA project a collaborative project, which depends on other countries' participation? Instead of depending wholly on defence contracts of this nature, which are extremely costly—at £7 billion in this case—would not it be prudent for the Government to develop civilian aircraft prototypes so that we can participate in the developments in civil aircraft? Otherwise, if the project fails, thousands of people—including highly skilled technicians—may be thrown on the dole as a result of the Government's lack of awareness.

In principle, what the hon. Gentleman says is indisputable, but, unfortunately, there is very little civil demand for a single-seater aircraft with the speed of Mach 2.

Is my hon. Friend happy that the major elements that make up the European fighter aircraft have been developed satisfactorily and as far as is possible in the experimental stage before being incorporated in the main contract? Will he confirm that the plane has an expectancy of service well into the year 2000 and beyond?

I can certainly confirm that. Component development and testing are part of the development phase, to which all the participants have now signed up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a further statement on the study, "Options for Change".

Consistent with the broad proposals for change that I outlined in July, we have already announced the early retirement of 11 Royal Naval warships and the decision not to proceed with the order for the eighth batch of Tornado attrition aircraft. We have most recently announced our plans for withdrawing units from RAF Wildenrath and RAF Gutersloh. Further announcements on other changes should be possible in the coming months.

Whatever reshaping of the armed forces follows the review, does the Secretary of State agree that defence of the United Kingdom air space will remain the fundamental responsibility of the Government and that it will call for early warning?perhaps most important, airborne early warning—Can the Secretary of State comment on the progress of the airborne warning and communication system?

I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. We shall continue to depend on a comprehensive air defence capability and it will be our clear responsibility to ensure that that is achieved. The AWACS programme is proceeding on time and the first planes will be starting service in the first months of the coming year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be great disappointment in the north of England if, as a result of "Options for Change", the long-promised move of the department of quality assurance from Woolwich to Teesside did not take place? Does he accept that, if that department were not moved, the only acceptable outcome for people in the north would be for the Defence General Directorate of Quality Assurance to be cancelled in its entirety?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the answer to his first question is yes, as he has never ceased to remind me of it. I congratulate him, together with other hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), on their diligence in the matter. I well understand my hon. Friend's concern. There is more disappointment to come for many hon. Members. We cannot talk about "Options for Change" or, as others do somewhat unrealistically at times, about the peace dividend and not recognise that a peace dividend may be a loss-of-jobs dividend for many people. We shall obviously seek to anticipate that and to give the greatest warning that we can, but I should be wrong if I concealed from the House the reality of what we are embarked on, which was generally supported by the House, but it has consequences, as hon. Members will understand.

Will the Secretary of State go further and elaborate on what the Minister of State said in a rather glib answer? While the product and the assets might be specific, skills are less flexible. In view of his serious remarks, will the Secretary of State immediately enter into discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and get in touch with Scottish Enterprise to ensure that a skills survey is done and that jobs in the public sector, mainly in the Ministry of Defence in Scotland, are not lost to Scotland and that skills are not dissipated?

It did not need an announcement from me for many companies to make their own assessment of the future, and all my contacts with the industries concerned have shown that there has been considerable diversification. I should trust the ability of those companies to identify where markets are likely to be rather than try to pre-plan them centrally, which has proved disastrous in the past. Obviously, we recognise a keen interest in the matter. We shall seek to keep hon. Members closely informed on their constituency and industrial interests. We are proceeding with "Options for Change". I can confirm that, as was made clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), and it will have implications for several hon. Members.

When my right hon. Friend makes his further statement, will he be in a position to state the time scale for the SSN20, which is the follow-on from the Trafalgar class submarine? If there is to be any delay in the statement, will he bear in mind how helpful it would be to the company and, more important, to the work force and the whole community of Barrow if the Government's intentions could be made clear?

I understand my hon. Friend's close interest in those matters, which he represents to us most energetically. Obviously, I understand the importance to all the people of Barrow of an early announcement. I cannot comment any further today, but I confirm that we are very conscious of the matter and will seek to keep in close touch with my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications for the United Kingdom of the conventional forces in Europe treaty signed in Paris in November.

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

While we welcome the encouraging peace developments in the Paris treaty, we would all accept that that is in the worst economic circumstances for manufacturing industry, in particular engineering. If the Government can subsidise consultancies for companies under the enterprise initiative, which is paid for by taxpayers, why are they so resistant to setting up an agency to tackle the conversion from arms manufacture to peacetime and civil industry?

The reason is simple-it is because we have experienced central planning from Government and interference in industry and it has been notoriously unsuccessful. The most unproductive companies have been supported and that has led to reducing the chance of survival of successful companies.

Now that the CFE treaty has been signed and the German elections are out of the way, why are our partners in the European fighter programme dragging their feet over their whole-hearted commitment to it? The answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was welcome, but is Britain to proceed unilaterally with the project? What about our partners, bearing in mind the fact that next year some of the items with long lead times will have to be ordered?

I can assure my hon. Friend that our partners in the EFA project are signed up to the development stage, so, whatever we have been hearing, I do not think that they have the option of pulling out.

The loss of jobs in the defence industry should be a matter of great concern to us all, but I should like to put another matter to the Minister because his answer was less than forthcoming. The word "vacuous" sprang to mind, but it is probably too substantial a word. What progress has been made on the follow-on negotiations to CFE-1? When are those negotiations likely to begin? Can the Minister say something about the pledge in the Queen's Speech that the Government would be "active" in their pursuit of further conventional disarmament? What activities have they undertaken so far? What approach are the Government adopting? Finally, what are they seeking to achieve in further disarmament negotiations?

Bodies are already meeting to plan the way ahead. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the CFE treaty still has to be ratified. The nearest estimate that I have heard of when that is due to happen is July next year. However, thought is being given to the follow-on from here and to what form that should take. Discussions are currently taking place on that matter.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that when, under the terms of the Paris treaty, various sites in Europe are removed from military use, they will be restored to their former condition and that there will not be any toxic or long-term damage at those sites such as we have seen following the withdrawal of similar forces from the Warsaw pact and the eastern bloc?

Any reductions in any force levels in central Europe will be carried out in conjunction with NATO to ensure that the residual forces have a coherence and military stature that makes some sense.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and ratings have been exposed to nuclear radiation in the past four years; and if he will make a statement.

Our records for the four years from 1986 to 1989 show that radiation dosimeters were issued respectively to 2,256, 2,546, 2,602 and 3,224 naval service personnel.

Why, in a democracy, do the Government not tell the Select Committee on Defence and the House of Commons the answer to the question that is on the Order Paper, which is: how many people have suffered from radiation? If the Minister cannot give us those figures, why, now that the cold war has ended, do we have nuclear submarines at all? Why not scrap them and use the money for the national health service?

It is a basic principle of Ministry of Defence policy that all exposure to radiation should be fully justified and reduced wherever possible. The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not fair and I am sure that he has read the recent report from the Select Committee on Defence, which states:

"We have been impressed by the firm commitment of the MOD and its contractors to achieving the highest standards of radiological protection for Service and civilian personnel."

Will my hon. Friend confirm that most officers and ratings would be more likely to receive high doses of radiation from living in Cornwall or from flying in high-flying aircraft than from serving in nuclear submarines?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Exposure to radiation from the atmosphere is often substantially more than that received by naval personnel.

That is simply not true. It is a fact that because of serious problems with the Polaris fleet, naval personnel have been subject to levels of radiation that are in excess of the limit advised by the National Radiological Protection Board, which is 15 mSv per year. The Government are acting with gross irresponsibility in their attitude not only to naval strategy, but, more especially, to the health and safety of submariners.

That is simply not true. We should not allow any naval personnel to suffer high levels of exposure. In fact, the exposure rates for people working inside submarines under the sea are much lower because they are protected from the exposure in the atmosphere to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding low-flying aircraft over national parks.

My Department's policy is to spread low flying as widely as possible to minimise disturbance to those on the ground. This means that most areas, including national parks, will see some low flying.

I recognise the need for training flights, but is the Minister aware that the national parks were set up as havens of tranquillity for the nation? Yet the public are banned from 100 square miles of Dartmoor for 10 months a year due to live firing by the Ministry of Defence, and when there are low-flying aircraft one needs earplugs to enjoy any recreation in the district. Will the Minister ensure that for two months of the year, in the summer, low-flying training is conducted elsewhere than in the national parks?

My hon. Friend has always been a doughty fighter on behalf of the national parks, but I think that he understands that we have to fly low if we are to have good pilots and an effective air force. The best policy is to spread low flying as widely as possible. If we were to keep low flying away from the national parks, we should have to concentrate it in more populated regions, but we try hard to keep low flying away from the national parks at weekends.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the British Telecom telephone system in the royal ordnance factories operates between 7 am and 5 pm, and if a low-flying aeroplane overshot one of the national parks and crashed into any of those royal ordnance factories in Great Britain those factories would be without a telephone service? Does the Secretary of State appreciate how serious this is? The royal ordnance factory in my constituency has one of the most pathetic telephone exchange systems—[Interruption.] Is the Secretary of State going to answer me?

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but safety is our prime concern and only the most experienced pilots are allowed to fly low.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who unreservedly support the need for the Royal Air Force to be capable of flying low and fast, believe—as I do, representing 2,000 square miles of beautiful highland Scotland—that our tranquillity and peace is as important as anyone else's, but we appreciate that it must be sacrificed if the Royal Air Force is to continue to be capable of carrying out the role that it is now playing in the Gulf?

Perhaps more than any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) understands the true needs of the defence of our country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the log books of all British submarines for the period between 12 noon and 4 pm on 5 September 1988.

No, Sir. However, unclassified extracts from Royal Navy submarine log books for the period in question have been given to the High Court. We always make every effort to help the courts, subject only to security considerations.

My question refers to the log relevant to the Inspire. Since the incident involving that ship, the Government have made it known that the Royal Navy held some responsibility for the loss of the Antares. There has been a loss of probably 53 people, involving 16 trawlers between Britain and Ireland since 1980. Will the Government set up an independent inquiry into those tragic losses?

The loss of the Antares was a great tragedy, but 380 fishing boats have been lost in the past 10 years, of which the Royal Navy has admitted responsibility for the sinking of one. The question whether the loss of the Antares was the responsibility of a Royal Navy submarine still remains to be confirmed by a court of inquiry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great apprehension and fear among fishermen using the Irish sea and among their families? Will he do something positive to alleviate it?

Yes, indeed. A meeting between flag officers of submarines and representatives of the fishing industry is organised for this coming Friday, and I hope that they will be able to reach some agreement about an exchange of information which will be helpful in this matter.

In view of the tragic sinking of the mot or fishing vessel Antares, surely when submarines steam through the traditional fishing grounds in the Irish sea and in and around the Firth of Clyde, there is a simple solution in this post cold war era: the Minister should instruct the commanders of the submarines to sail their vessels on the surface. Does the Minister agree that that would bring heartfelt relief to fishermen and their families throughout the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?

We must accept that the accident involving the Antares was exceptional. There have been only two such incidents, if this one involved a submarine. There has been only one other incident in the past 10 years. We have to ensure that our submarines operate secretly, they have to operate under water and it is important that they operate in inshore waters. I am afraid that that is an essential requirement of good submarine capability.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British troops in the Gulf states.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of casualties in the event of war in the Gulf; and what medical treatment arrangements have been made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are now in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total number of troops deployed by the United Kingdom in the middle east to date.

The Government hope that economic pressure and the diplomatic moves now under way will secure Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. However, by the adoption of Security Council resolution 678, the international community has shown that it is also prepared to use all necessary means, including military force. To help ensure that Saddam Hussein will face a credible military option, more than 30,000 United Kingdom forces, including medical and other support services, are now being committed to the Gulf. Around 17,000 of those are already there. If Saddam Hussein continues to defy the United Nations resolutions and force has to be used, the stronger the allied force, the better the chances of keeping casualties low.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, if the worst comes to the worst and war breaks out over Kuwait, the Tornados built at Salmesbury in Preston, Lancashire, will probably save thousands of lives of troops on the ground by destroying enemy aircraft. Will he therefore examine the need for spares and for further aircraft, with a possible view to saving many of the thousands of jobs in Preston and at the factory that British Aerospace plans to close?

I can certainly confirm that the Tornado, with its strike attack capability and night-flying capability, and the Tornado F3 air defence variant, are key elements in our capability. I can say nothing more about further orders at this stage, but I certainly pay tribute to the quality of the aircraft.

Given the tremendous response by the people of this country to the telethon in aid of the Save the Children Fund and the Government's claim to be acting in the name of these same people in seriously contemplating launching an attack which must result in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children in the Gulf, does the Minister detect an irony in that?

The Government do not want to see conflict, and we do not want to launch any attack. We want to see freedom and justice for the people of Kuwait. The Government and the whole world, with the exception of Iraq, have made that clear and so has the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party and his Front-Bench spokesmen. There has been overwhelming support in the House for the need to back the strong stance of the United Nations. No sane person seeks conflict, but if one is not prepared to use the threat of the military option, the alternative is the continuing enslavement of Kuwait, the continuing subjugation of its people and the continuing imprisonment of the hostages.

Does the Secretary of State for Defence recognise that I have repeatedly tried to get comments from the former Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and himself on the estimates that have been made the likely level of casualties if war were to break out? What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to Brigadier Patrick Cordingley, commander of the Desert Rats, who believes that if a war breaks out there will be a bloodbath on both sides, and that the British Government should tell the British people officially that the British casualty rate will be about 15 per cent. or, on the figures that given today, that 4,500 troops will die? Does the Secretary of State not realise that an increasing number of people in this country do not believe that that sacrifice is warranted and that, frankly, blood and oil do not mix?

The first thing that the hon. Gentleman had better learn is that when people quote casualty figures they include minor and serious casualties and not just fatalities. It is quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to offer that to the House because it is a total error. I will not bandy figures with the hon. Gentleman. I have answered his question. At the end of my answer I gave the precise reason for Britain's sending more forces and I also said why the United States, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had increased recruitment. It is precisely to ensure that if the military option had to be used—and nobody wants to see that—the operation would be short, sharp and quick so that casualties on the allied side could be kept to a minimum. That is the reality of what we want to see.

The right hon. Gentleman should not have sold them the arms in the first place.

If the hon. Gentleman cares about life and the avoidance of casualties, he should turn one eighth of that volume in the direction of Baghdad and tell Saddam Hussein to obey the United Nations. Then we would see a solution.

In direct contradiction to the last two questions, is my right hon. Friend aware that the British public are very well aware of the efforts being made by the free world to free a part of the world that is now subjugated, and if those efforts fail they fully expect our forces to play a part in freeing Kuwait in defence of basic human rights?

I think that the whole House, and all those who have considered these matters, will admit that the nations of the free world have stood together in a way that one would not have thought possible as recently as a month or two ago. The unanimity and agreement of the five permanent members of the Security Council have been important factors. In a very real sense, the authority of the United Nations is now at stake.

I thank the Secretary of State for the arrangements that he made for some of my hon. Friends and me to visit the Gulf. We are conscious of the high morale of our troops, their measured approach, their professionalism and the respect that they enjoy from their allies. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that our troops have the spares and supplies that they require to sustain the armoured divisions and especially the tanks?

I am grateful for the hon. Member's thanks, and I am glad that the Select Committee, Opposition spokesmen and others found it a valuable visit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not pick up those reports of shortages while in Saudi Arabia. I have seen newspaper reports here, but in Saudi Arabia our forces feel that they are getting the support for which they are looking. We are determined to see that they do and I shall not rest until we succeed. Tomorrow, I am on my way to NATO and I shall have with me a short list of suggestions of some of the matters on which our allies can help us so as to ensure that we have the resources.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in deciding whether to exercise the military option, the Government and their allies will have to take into account not only the ghastly things that are happening in Kuwait, but the even more terrible consequences that could stem from Saddam Hussein being seen to get away with the aggression that he has committed and with developing nuclear weapons?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One or two of the interventions from Opposition Members could have come only from people ignorant of what has been happening in Kuwait. No decent person could turn his fire on the United States and the United Kingdom and excuse Saddam Hussein's Government and the Iraqi forces their unspeakable behaviour in Kuwait and their treatment of people there.

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

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Prime Minister of New Zealand. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Has the right hon. Gentleman found time to consider which of the policies in which he participated over the past 11 years he now regrets and proposes to change? If the answer is that the Major revolution amounts to no more than requiring back-seat drivers to belt up, what benefits have the public received in exchange for the expensive telephone bills incurred by Government Departments in the course of the past month's plotting?

I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman one thing. There is one back-seat injunction that I shall not follow—I shall not turn left.

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

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen this morning's press tribute to his and my county of Cambridgeshire for the way it has given as much management control to schools as if those schools had adopted grant-maintained status? Will he compare that with the proposal to introduce new, politically appointed bureaucracies, which may aim high but will inevitably lower standards to that of the lowest standard achievable, as one would expect of Labour party policies?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I saw this morning's papers and I know that Cambridgeshire county council has been innovative in education for a long time. I am delighted to see what it is now doing. I agree that expensive bureaucratic control of education will only withdraw resources from the classroom, whereas our policy is to ensure that resources remain in the classroom.

The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to the personal debt of gratitude that he owes to the national health service. Does he think that it would be right to discharge that debt by getting rid of hospital opt-out?

Self-government within the NHS will improve management. That is why so many hospitals are seeking to opt out. In the past 10 years, more resources have been added to the NHS than anyone could have imagined. There is no doubt that in future the NHS will be at the centre of our concerns.

It is clear that the Prime Minister intends to make no change for the better in the NHS. Is he not aware that whenever a ballot has been held, consultants, hospital doctors, nurses, general practitioners and the general public have all voted by huge majorities against opting out? Does he realise that opt-out will intensify the crisis in the NHS? As the NHS has never done anything but good by him, why is he doing it so much harm?

If the right hon. Gentleman believes that to be the case, should not he make a start by trying to convince his constituents about the Hinchingbrooke hospital in his constituency, where waiting lists have doubled in the past two years? The local press has referred to a wall of opposition against opting out. Will the right hon. Gentleman support his constituents?

Unlike some Opposition Members, I unfailingly use the NHS. Its future is entirely secure, with increased funding, as it has been for the past 10 years.

Self-government is being proposed by the consultants and the staff at the Hinchingbrooke hospital, which holds the enormous affection of people in the area. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman something else about that hospital it was not available under the Labour Government—it was this Government who provided it.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Prime Minister and also on the speech that he made earlier today, which I thought embodied the spirit of the late lain Macleod. In that context, and in that spirit, may I ask him to give urgent consideration to two particular injustices—first, the position of those haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS as a result of blood products provided by the national health service and, secondly, the position of those who suffered as a result of being exposed to radiation from the atomic tests carried out immediately after world war 2? I do not expect him to give an answer off the top of his head—that would be unfashionable—but would he give those matters urgent consideration?

As my right hon. Friend knows, I like to consider matters before reaching a conclusion. However, I shall certainly accept his injunction and do so.

When the Prime Minister gave his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment what we now understand to be carte blanche for a fundamental review of the poll tax, did he rule out the option of abolishing it?

My right hon. Friend and I will be discussing later today the precise remit for consideration.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider the latest computer analysis from the Institute of Directors on the top-performing companies in Europe? Has he noted that there are more United Kingdom companies than German or French companies in the top 100 and does not that say far more about the underlying strength of the British economy than the economic illiteracy that we hear from the Leader of the Opposition?

My hon. Friend is right. There is absolutely no doubt about the revolution in the prospects for this country over the past decade.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Henley-on-Thames.

I have no present plans to do so.

When the Prime Minister finally gets round to going to Henley and perhaps having a rubber chicken dinner with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he tell the voters of Henley why he has managed to offend the Welsh, the blacks and others—[Interruption.] including women, in his first seven days in office? Is that how he intends to start building his classless society?

I think that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was writing down the question that he intended his hon. Friend to ask and not the one that his hon. Friend did ask. In so far as the question presumably relates to Mr. Taylor, the prospective Conservative candidate in Cheltenham, the reported remarks—which I understand have been denied—are not sentiments that have any place in our party.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the branch line to Henley-on-Thames remains intact? Does he recognise that if more decisions of that nature had been taken by British Rail in the past few years, and fewer decisions of the kind taken following the disastrous Beeching report, many more of our fellow citizens would today have the opportunity to travel by train which has been denied them by the closures of recent years?

I was aware of the excellent service from Henley. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment reports to me regularly on it.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that in some areas, particularly Sheffield, general practitioners have been prevented from prescribing certain drugs to patients, in particular young children? Without rattling out the old figures about how many patients are being treated under the NHS, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether under his Government patients and, in particular, young children will be denied the medication and treatment that they need?

I will tell the hon. Gentleman that the district health authority in his area has substantially more cash than in previous years, that the treatment of in-patients and out-patients has risen and that the quantum and quality of health treatment rises yearly.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one group of our citizens who should not be subjected to the community charge are British hostages in the Gulf? Will he agree to issue an advice to that effect, or even a directive under primary legislation, so that uncertainty, anxiety and anger can be removed?

I think that my hon. Friend will find that we have already sent such advice to local authorities.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister reflect on the case of my constituent, John Hall, who is dying of leukaemia, which he contracted while working on Christmas Island? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the first acts of his new Administration, reverse the Government's policy and in compassion, humanity and justice, provide John Hall and the other nuclear test veterans with the compensation that the House and the country believe that they so richly deserve?

I will examine the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am not familiar with the details of his constituent. I will discuss it and examine it.

Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that today's performance has demonstrated that the two main parties have both the leaders and the policies for the next general election—for us to win, and for them to lose?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend It is not for me to reply for the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), but if he ever needs a campaign team, I will lend him mine.

The Prime Minister will recall that the Queen's Speech promised that a Bill would be introduced to give our courts jurisdiction to try alleged war criminals. Does that promise still stand?

That Bill is in the Government's programme and it will be presented to the House. There will be suggested amendments that the House will want to examine.

Those of us of a particular generation well remember when the Russian and British people were together, when Mrs. Churchill led the campaign to support the Russian people. In the present circumstances, will not only the British Government but the British people respond as they did during the last war?

There is considerable concern in this country about the difficulties faced by the Russian people and by President Gorbachev. There is also great warmth in this country for the changes brought about in the Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev's presidency. That feeling exists not only in the House but throughout the European Community and I have no doubt that the situation in Russia will be one of many matters discussed at forthcoming Community meetings.