To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the total costs of the Gulf war to date; and what proportion of this he now expects to be funded by allied nations.

The additional costs of the Gulf conflict so far assessed are some £1½ billion, including equipment lost and munitions used. On the basis indicated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the debate on the autumn statement last week, we expect that the eventual costs could be £3 billion.

Is not it very good news that, following the successful visits of the Foreign Secretary to the Kuwait Government-in-exile and of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the United Arab Emirates, we now have a substantial commitment to our costs in the Gulf? Will my right hon. Friend confirm, however, that the Government will continue to try to ensure that countries such as Japan, which can expect to gain most from stability in the Gulf, make their fair contribution, too?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I confirm that we have hopes and expectations of significant additions to the sums that I have announced. My hon. Friend mentioned Japan. I had the pleasure of meeting the new Japanese ambassador yesterday and I know that the Japanese Government are keen to show their appreciation of the very significant contribution made by British forces to the coalition effort.

In view of the substantial allied financial contributions and the fact that replacement costs could be spread over a period of time, could not the financial costs of war to Britain easily be met?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "easily be met." This is a very costly undertaking. I have set out what I think the costs will eventually be—of the order of £3 billion. We very much appreciate the contributions that are being made to help towards that sum, but I do not disguise from the House the fact that a signficant cost will remain to be borne by the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend share my gratitude and that of the British people for the £275 million that has been provided by the German people? Does he agree, however, that there may still be some leeway for a further and much more substantial contribution from them and that it does not particularly help to give £275 million one day and then to increase interest rates by 0·5 per cent. the following day?

That question goes a little wider than my immediate concerns. I appreciate the contribution that has been made. As my hon. Friend realises, we are also most grateful for the very substantial help that has been given by the German Government—the German Ministry of Defence—in a range of different matters, including vehicles, training, ammunition and equipment of one sort and another. I think that I am right in saying that every request that we have made to the German Government has now been met.

The costs that are being borne by our service personnel in the Gulf are a cause for concern to many people. That applies in particular to the poll tax. Will our troops be compelled to continue to pay the poll tax and, if not, who will make up the lost revenue that local government will have to raise?

That question is just about as wide as the last one, I am afraid.

rose—

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, he may answer the first part.

I do not remember what the first part was, although I thought that both were out of order. The hon. Gentleman was perhaps trying to anticipate some of the discussions later today.

Has each of the Community countries now made a contribution towards the effort in the Gulf? In particular, have the Irish done so?

No. The House knows the Irish policy of neutrality and Ireland has not made a contribution in this respect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is contributing funds or personnel towards the operation to clean up oil slicks in the Gulf.

The Ministry of Defence, in common with other Departments, responded promptly to requests for assistance in dealing with the oil slicks in the Gulf. For example, we made available three charter flights to transport 90 tonnes of pollution control equipment from industry stocks held in the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia on 28 to 30 January. In addition, ships of the Royal Navy and our military aircraft flying in the area of the slicks have, where possible, been providing information on the slicks to assist in the assessment of their location, extent and movements.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that, but why, after so many predictions that oil spills were likely in the Gulf war—whether deliberate or accidental—did the Ministry of Defence take no steps to position oil spillage clean-up equipment in the Gulf before the fighting started? Will he give priority to the environmental clean-up? Will he give a further commitment that the allies will not worsen what Saddam Hussein has done by bombing oil tankers or oil wells?

That is not the position. Saddam Hussein decided to put oil slicks in the Gulf. It would have been difficult for the allies to position oil spillage clean-up equipment in the area because it would have come under attack and been shelled by the Iraqis. The hon. Gentleman should make no mistake that the allies' aim was to stop off oil flows into the Gulf. Precision bombing has succeeded in stopping some of the slicks.

Is my hon. Friend aware from reports in the media by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that it is the only organisation that is sending people to the Gulf to deal with the problems of wildlife damaged in the oil spill and that it is making a direct appeal for funds? Can any help be given to that organisation and will he clarify whether the RSPCA is the only organisation looking after wildlife in the Gulf?

I am not aware of whether the RSPCA is the only organisation doing that work, but it is certainly making a valuable contribution. I hope that the British people will respond generously to what it is doing.

Does the Minister agree that there was insufficient planning for an inevitability? Saddam Hussein should be in the dock for his malicious, wicked and futile gesture. He stands virtually unanimously condemned by the whole world for pouring millions of tonnes of oil into the Gulf which has proved dire for humans and calamitous for wildlife. Will the Minister join me in taking this opportunity to praise all those volunteers who have travelled to that troubled land to save as much wildlife as possible?

Yes, I certainly do, and I echo the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Saddam Hussein's callous act has led to the oil slicks and I pay tribute to the volunteers who are doing all that they can to clear them up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account is taken of the possible consequences to the environment in the military strategy employed in the Gulf war.

Environmental factors are taken into account to the extent possible in the planning and conduct of military operations in the Gulf. We have repeatedly made it clear that we do all we can to ensure that collateral damage from our operations is minimised.

Bearing in mind the appalling environmental consequences of the Gulf conflict so far and the sad fact that worse may be to come, what dialogue has there been within the United Nations about that aspect of the Gulf conflict? Has consideration been given to the formation of an environmental equivalent of the Red Cross or Red Crescent to tackle that aspect of the war?

There has been a great deal of international co-operation on that aspect and I believe that the United Nations is conducting studies to ensure that minimal damage is done.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best thing for the environment in the Gulf would be for the allied forces to win the war so that the polluter will be forced out of the Gulf and we can start the clean-up?

I could not agree more. We must also bear it in mind that Saddam Hussein is capable of polluting the area with nuclear and chemical weapons, too.

Why should Mr. David Olsen, the consultant adviser on the environment to the Saudi Government, complain about a shortage of equipment?

I cannot answer for Mr. David Olsen. However, we have done our bit by sending about 90 tonnes of equipment which has been held here by the Department of Transport to help to clean up the problems in the area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received about the use of British forces in the Gulf.

I have received a substantial number of letters from Members of Parliament and the public regarding the situation in the Gulf. Some 20 per cent. of a recent sample of letters reflected opposition to the presence of British forces and military action. This is very much in line with recent opinion polls, which also indicate overwhelming support for our forces in the Gulf.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which praises the professionalism and self-restraint of British soldiers in the Gulf. Does my right hon. Friend agree that civilian casualties—the direct consequence of any war—are the result of the intransigence of Saddam Hussein? Will he contrast the attempt of the allies to minimise civilian casualties with the efforts of Saddam Hussein to maximise them by aiming Scud missiles at innocent civilians in Israel and Saudi Arabia?

My hon. Friend puts it very clearly and is absolutely right. I confirm again to the House that the absolute instruction for our service men—and, with the present air campaign, for our aircrews—is at all times to minimise civilian casualties. As my hon. Friend says, there is a sharp contrast in that we are seeking to minimise casualties while Saddam Hussein aims to cause them deliberately by aiming Scud missiles at civilian areas. The House may also have noted another contrast: if something goes wrong, as can happen, tragically, we manifestly try to set out the truth as well as we know it and do not try to conceal anything.

Like the rest of us, even now the British forces in the Gulf would welcome Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait in accordance with the United Nations resolution. However, can the Secretary of State confirm that, if Iraq does not withdraw from Kuwait, the British ground forces have now reached such a state of readiness that they can fulfil any military task that may be assigned to them?

Yes, I can confirm that. I spoke to General de la Billiere yesterday and he confirmed that the British ground forces are ready for a land campaign should it prove necessary. Of course, we hope even at this very late stage that Iraq will recognise the essential need to observe to the full the United Nations resolution. If not, it will have to face the consequences.

Is not it strange that in the alleged attack on the bunker only women and children were in that air raid shelter? When on earth have only women and children entered a shelter during an air raid? Can the BBC please not provide propaganda for the enemy by suggesting that it was an attack on a civilian target?

The whole House will regret the death of any civilians, including women and children. The United States has made it clear that the building was a military command and control facility and that it had been on the target list for some time. However, it is very much regretted that there were civilians there, too, and the United States has made it clear that if it had been known that civilians were in that bunker, it would not have been attacked.

While the Secretary of State is referring to public opinion, will he on every appropriate occasion bring to the notice of our men and women in the Gulf the quite extraordinary blend of public opinion at home, in the Arab world, in the international community and in the United Nations supporting totally their role, as well as the fact that their's is truly an historic mission and that they have the confidence of the House of Commons?

I am very grateful for what the hon. Gentleman, particularly with his background and experience, has said. I hope that those men and women know that. He is right to draw attention to the remarkable coalition, now involving 33 countries which have provided forces or contributions to the Gulf effort. That is very significant. He is right to draw attention to the contribution of our armed forces, which approach the matter not in an aggressive sense, but in the recognition of a job that may need to be done.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the training of United Kingdom armed forces and the servicing of United Kingdom military equipment.

Members of the armed forces undertake regular training to prepare them as fully and as realistically as possible for the tasks that they may have to undertake in hostilities and to assist them in carrying out peacetime duties. Servicing of military equipment is aimed at maximising operational availability while ensuring that quality is achieved at a cost-effective price.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Gulf war has vividly demonstrated to everyone that today's warfare is highly technical and highly sophisticated? Must not we have the right calibre of personnel in our armed forces and give them the right well-maintained equipment and good training? Is not that what the British armed forces have always done and why they have always been considered to be the best in the world?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I follow him in paying tribute to our volunteer forces who are superbly trained and highly motivated and who have some of the best equipment in the world.

Will the Minister acknowledge the contribution made by the Rosyth naval base and the adjoining dockyard to the training of personnel and to the servicing of equipment? Does he accept that it would be a cruel acknowledgement of that activity if the naval base were peremptorily closed? That would have a severe impact on the economic fabric of Fife.

I pay tribute to Rosyth naval base and the dockyard for keeping much of the Navy well equipped and enabling it to perform an excellent job. I am unable to comment on "Options for Change", which is reviewing all our support facilities. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further on that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that low flying has played a very important part in the courageous missions that the Royal Air Force has flown? Does not that give the lie to the Opposition's considerable irritation when they said that low flying was no longer necessary?

Yes, absolutely. One lesson that we have learnt is that low flying is something at which it takes a long time to become proficient. It is not something that can be worked up quickly in a short period before hostilities. I am afraid that, for the foreseeable future, we must continue with low flying, the value of which has been very much proven during this conflict.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any consideration is being given to a review of training facilities offered to the military forces of foreign governments in the light of events in the Gulf.

Our policy on the provision of military training for overseas countries takes into account a wide range of factors and is kept under continuous review.

How can the Minister justify the fact that until March 1990, we were training Iraqi military personnel in this country? When Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds and invading Iran, we were supplying him with technology and training his military forces. When will the Government realise that when we accept money from every tinpot dictator who wants to send his troops here we are acting against the long-term interest of not only British troops in the Gulf, but all the British people?

The hon. Gentleman should get things in perspective. Since 1979 we have trained the forces of 110 different countries.

How many more of Saddam Hussein's forces are we training?

I totally accept that with the advantage of hindsight we would not have trained the Iraqis. However, the hon. Gentleman is now showing the wisdom that we would be at war with Iraq which no one else was able to do.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is greatly to the credit of this country that so many students from overseas wish to come to our training establishments? Perhaps they pick up some good ideas about relationships between politicians and service men. Does he also agree that they give us quite a lot of cash in the process?

That is absolutely true. Much of the training that we provide leads to export sales and the whole business of training for the armed services cements relationships with a number of countries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many part-time and full-time members there are in the Ulster Defence Regiment.

On 1 January 1991, there were 3,088 part-time and 2,955 permanent cadre members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

As a Minister involved 20 years ago in the launch of the Ulster Defence Regiment, I welcome those figures. Will the Ulster Defence Regiment continue to have sufficient resources made available to it to maintain its manpower, especially as it is in competition with other security forces such as the RUC, the Territorial Army and various Irish regiments in the regular British Army? From the experience of the past 20 years, will the Minister ask the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate on the Ulster Defence Regiment so that we can further improve and strengthen that regiment in Northern Ireland, whose service is respected throughout the whole community?

I, too, pay tribute to the Ulster Defence Regiment, which plays a valuable role in combating terrorism in Northern Ireland. We will, of course, ensure that it is properly funded. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's remark about a debate.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the UDR is an effective part of the Territorial Army and that any move to reduce the scale of the Territorial Army, which consumes less than 3·5 per cent. of the Army's budget, would be greatly contested by many in the House?

I must put my hon. Friend right. The UDR is not part of the Territorial Army; in Northern Ireland, the Territorial Army is a wholly different organisation. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Territorial Army and I will take that into account when we come to consider its future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce his decision on the replacement for the Chieftain tank.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to announce an order for a new tank to replace the Army's Chieftains.

We had hoped to announce a decision on equipment for our future main battle tank fleet in the early spring. Hon. Members will appreciate that it would not be realistic to take such a decision at present and that it is sensible to defer it.

Does not the Minister recognise that this further postponement, for perhaps as long as 18 months, on a firm decision on Challenger 2 puts at risk the jobs of many hundreds of people on Tyneside and in Leeds? Does not the Minister further recognise that those same people are working—and have been working for many months—to supply our forces with Challenger 1 tanks, which are now in the Gulf, with all the equipment that they need? Does not he realise that his answer means that those workers face the production line now and the redundancy queue later?

No. The hon. Gentleman's question is entirely unjustified. However, I join him in paying tribute to the workshops in those factories and to the tremendous support that they have given to the existing tank fleet in the Gulf. The figure of 18 months is pure invention by the hon. Gentleman and he should know better than to try to spread it round.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the same skill and dedication as have been shown in support of the Army in the Gulf by the work force at Vickers have gone into the design of Challenger 2? It has been designed specifically to meet the British Army's requirements for the future and it does meet them. Does he accept that we want the tank order to be placed with Vickers on the basis of our confidence in its capabilities and that an early decision is necessary to remove the present uncertainty in the plants in the north-east?

I certainly confirm that Challenger 2 has achieved all the thresholds that we put in place for it to satisfy. My hon. Friend will agree that, faced with the likely prospect of the first major armoured engagement since the Yom Kippur war, it would not be prudent to make a precipitate decision in advance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of our friends overseas who were planning to buy battle tanks for themselves have been very favourably impressed by the performance of Challenger, but that they are waiting to see the outcome of the United Kingdom competition? Will he bear that very much in mind in deciding his timing and so assist the company in building on the dramatic progress that has been made since the day that Vickers took over the royal ordnance factory at Barnbow?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point. The performance of Challenger 1 in the region has been impressive and the mean time between failures has greatly exceeded the figures that it was turning in in Germany. That has been apparent to a number of potential customers in the area who have noticed it favourably.

Would not it be a good idea for the Government to consider the development of alternative uses of such factories to employ their great skills and equipment? Dependency on one product makes factories vulnerable. Surely the Government will examine the odious international arms trade after the cessation of Gulf hostilities in an attempt to curb that trade. That would stop our troops having British weapons used against them.

It is not the business of government to direct companies on the form of their commercial activities. The hon. Gentleman might care to make his point to the work force or have a quiet word with his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the armed forces in Northern Ireland are experiencing any problems as a result of IRA threats to builders and suppliers.

The Government take all the steps necessary to ensure that the requirements of the armed forces in Northern Ireland are met. Intimidation and brutal, cold-blooded murder by terrorists of ordinary people working for their living has not, and will not, advance the terrorist cause one inch.

Will the Minister pay tribute to all those people of courage who have fulfilled their contracts for the security forces, especially those who have been murdered by the cowardly members of the IRA? Is the Minister aware that the Ulster people have nothing but contempt for those who seek out such soft and easy targets as civilians who work for the security forces, especially Roman Catholic members of the community who are trying to do their best for Northern Ireland and for their families?

Yes, I am delighted to pay great tribute to the people who work for the security forces in Northern Ireland. The whole programme of construction in Northern Ireland, which has been massive, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, has not been put back one bit by terrorist acts.

While we all roundly condemn terrorism, especially the terrorist acts recently in London, does the Minister agree that there is an argument for withdrawing, especially British troops, from the Province—as there is an argument for withdrawing Scottish troops from the Gull—[Interruption.]—and may I remind the Minister that about 42 per cent. of all British troops are Scots? We must argue the case—

Order. The question is about Northern Ireland.

I was talking about the linkage and pointing out that, as we all say, negotiation is better than conflagration and peace is better than war.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the presence of British troops in Northern Ireland is to uphold the democratic will of the majority of the people there. He must believe as much as I do in the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new initiatives he plans in the area of overseas sales of defence equipment.

Officials in the Defence Export Services Organisation are in constant touch with friendly foreign countries, both directly and through overseas posts, to best help furnish the equipment they require for their own self-defence.

Does the Minister recall that the Indonesian Government killed a bigger proportion of the population of East Timor than Pol Pot killed of the population of Cambodia? Why are Government agencies at this moment encouraging British Aerospace to sell Hawk aircraft and other weapons to the butchers of Indonesia? When will we realise that the international arms trade is the greatest cause for evil in the world? When will Britain stop selling arms to the madmen, butchers and tyrants of the world?

I reject the imputation that the hon. Gentleman puts on his supplementary question. Very strict and stringent conditions are applied to the sale of armaments. All armaments require export licences and they are considered by three Departments—mine, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.

Does the Minister believe that once the war is over, there might be some merit in having a thorough European appraisal of the whole question of the sale of defence equipment, perhaps via the aegis of a body such as the Western European Union?

Yes, certainly. After the successful conclusion of the conflict, the most important concern will be to build up and maintain stability in the area. In his Blaby speech, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary developed that theme at some length.

Further to the remarks by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), coalition forces in the Gulf are now faced by Iraqi troops who have weapons supplied by coalition countries. Surely that demonstrates the need for more effective control of the arms trade, especially in the light of the fact that in his main answer the Minister said that we should supply arms to friendly foreign countries, which Iraq recently was. Will the Government give the highest priority to the issue of the introduction of weapons into an unstable area, such as the middle east, as soon as the war is over?

The basis of Britain's role in defence sales is the right to self-defence as enshrined in article 51 of the United Nations charter, but, of course, that question must be considered sensitively and intelligently and in the light of all the diplomatic and political factors prevailing at the time. When the conflict is over, I have no doubt that, together with the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, my Department will look at many of those topics with that point in mind.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the Gulf.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about Operation Desert Storm.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the conflict in the Gulf.

Allied pressure on the Iraqi military machine continues to grow. The main weight of the air campaign is now directed against Iraqi forces in and near Kuwait, and the Iraqi navy has been largely destroyed. Yesterday, British artillery was in action for the first time in a limited engagement. This is part of the preparations for the ground campaign which will be inevitable unless Saddam Hussein complies with UN Security Council resolutions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a former Labour Cabinet Minister yesterday described reporters in Baghdad as "fifth columnists" not, perhaps, without some cause? Will my right hon. Friend communicate to the BBC and ITN the real sense of anger that is felt by many people in this country at what they see as Britain's reporters reporting back to this country from Baghdad only what Saddam Hussein wants them to report in his efforts to undermine the morale of the British people—efforts which will, of course, prove ineffective?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. It is extremely difficult for the correspondents in Baghdad to be able to begin to discharge their proper responsibilities when operating under the conditions which manifestly exist. One cannot draw a bigger contrast than to point to the way in which, over the weekend when it is possible that there may have been a most unfortunate and regrettable incident in which some civilians may have been killed, we made a point of putting before the public such facts as were available to us.

While saluting the skill and bravery of our service men and women in the Gulf, does my right hon. Friend recognise that it will take some time to evaluate the military lessons of Operation Desert Storm, which will inevitably mean that there will have to be a fundamental review of the paper "Options for Change"?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have made it clear that we wish to learn any lessons that can be learnt. The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the subject of the next tank order will obviously take account of the lessons that can be learnt. We shall be keen to take full stock of the implications that flow from Operation Desert Storm.

Given that there is still some outside hope of a diplomatic solution to the crisis, are there any contingency plans for supervising a peaceful withdrawal of the Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and how long would that take?

We do not yet know whether the Iraqis will withdraw. We have made it quite clear that we wish to see an immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Once we are satisfied that that is happening, arrangements about the way in which it is to be carried out will be a matter for urgent discussion.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the conflict and peace in the middle east cannot be won simply by the acceptance of resolution 660? Does he agree that the other resolutions, up to and including resolution 678, must be implemented and that Iraq's chemical and nuclear capability must be removed?

We have always stood by the United Nations resolutions. As my hon. Friend says, that means more than resolution 660.

Will the Secretary of State explain how it helps to get Iraq out of Kuwait to bombard Baghdad more heavily than it has ever been bombarded before, as we have been told in the press that the allies did last night? Is not it a breach of the Geneva convention to deprive civilians of water, food, electricity and proper medical treatment and to destroy their sewage system, so causing disease in the centre of Baghdad?

The attacks conducted as part of the air campaign are specifically directed at strategic or military targets, as the House knows. In Baghdad, there are control centres and communication centres which directly control and order the people in Kuwait. Those centres are certainly legitimate targets.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no reduction in military pressure until Saddam Hussein clarifies last Friday's announcements from Baghdad and starts to make arrangements to withdraw from Kuwait?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made the position clear. I make it clear that until and unless Iraq immediately and unconditionally withdraws from Kuwait, hostilities will continue as planned.

While fully appreciating the difficulties experienced by journalists in Baghdad in reporting the situation out there, does my right hon. Friend agree that the report on the "Today" programme from a BBC journalist who talked about the allied forces perpetrating five hours of bombing was disgraceful? According to the Oxford English dictionary the definition of "perpetrate" is to commit a crime, a blunder or something outrageous. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that report was nothing short of disgraceful and that such reporting does nothing to help the morale of our people here or in the Gulf?

On the last point, I would not be so despondent about the morale of our people here. In spite of reservations that we may have about the way in which some of these matters have been reported, we can recognise with admiration the steadily increasing support shown in the polls and right across the country for our forces in the Gulf, the dangerous work which they are undertaking and the difficulties that they face. We, for our part, will tell the truth about the circumstances in which we are involved in the conflict, even if mistakes are made or things go wrong. Broadcasting authorities and correspondents have a heavy responsibility to make sure that at all times they give the fairest possible representation of the true facts.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce a final decision about the future location of the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance.

Our studies are well in hand. We are considering several options for the relocation of the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance and will come to a decision as soon as possible.

Does the Minister realise that uncertainty about defence quality assurance has continued for more than 15 years? As one final decision to build a new headquarters at Woolwich is said to have been overturned and a second final decision to move to Teesside now seems in doubt, can he assure us that this costly dithering will stop and that the next final decision will really be final?

As I said, we are looking at all the options and no decision has yet been taken. We hope shortly to come to a decision. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about his constituency, but he should bear in mind that it will greatly benefit from any redevelopment of the royal arsenal west site.

It is nothing short of disgraceful that the Government, who previously announced the movement of the quality assurance unit from Woolwich to Teesside in 1989, now seek to renege on that commitment to move those 1,500 jobs. When will the Minister bring this matter to a positive conclusion in favour of the previous announcement?

My hon. Friend has fought long and hard to win the relocation for Cleveland and I pay tribute to his efforts. He will understand that we have a public duty to look at all the options in order to achieve the best value for money. I repeat that we have not yet made any decision, but hope to make one shortly. We certainly recognise the merits of his Preston farm site.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one event in these troubled times that has given much pleasure to people, and especially to our troops in the Gulf, has been the comprehensive English rugby victory at Twickenham? In that context does he further agree that we should begin to think about providing them with some real opposition which can now come only from South Africa? Is my right hon. Friend encouraged by the meeting of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers at the weekend which virtually saw the beginning of the end of the infamous Gleneagles agreement? Will he take further initiatives to restore British-South African sporting relations?

In answer to my hon. Friend's first point, I am not sure that many Scots troops in the Gulf would necessarily agree with him. I recall occasions when both the Scots and the Welsh had rather too satisfactory results at Twickenham and elsewhere. I agree with my hon. Friend's substantive point that the time has come to resume sporting links with South Africa in areas where there is now proper integration of sport within the Republic of South Africa. I have discussed that matter with other Commonwealth leaders and I hope to take it forward.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science today said:

"I'm not interested in proposals that transfer expenditure on education from the local taxpayer to central Government taxation".

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are examining a whole series of options in the community charge review. If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient we shall announce the result of that as soon as possible.

But the Secretary of State could not have been clearer in ruling out the idea of transferring expenditure from local taxation to central taxation. Will the Prime Minister make his position clear on this aspect of concern? Does he support his Secretary of State for Education and Science?

I shall make the position entirely clear on the matter under review when we have finished the review.

Why does not the Prime Minister save a great deal of time and the country a huge amount of money by abolishing the poll tax and accepting the Labour party proposal for a modern system of fair rates? That is the best way to, deal with the poll tax.

I am sure that the whole country will have listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman. What a shame that when he announced his proposals in Scotland they did not meet with the acclaim that he expected.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the man who was so cruelly murdered by the bomb at Victoria station yesterday came from Thornton Heath, which is in my constituency, and leaves a wife and baby son. Will my right hon. Friend send the sympathy of the whole House to that family, and can he assure us that no expense or effort will be spared, to bring the callous killers to justice?

The whole House will share the views that have been expressed by my hon. Friend. I certainly offer to the family of the gentleman who was killed, and to all those who were injured, our very warmest sympathy. One is bound to ask what sort of people it is that can carry out attacks of this kind. They are certainly consumed with hate, and they are certainly sick of mind. And they can be certain of one thing—that they will be hunted and hunted until they are found.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

With unemployment soaring past 2 million, with record numbers of homeless people and home repossessions, with pensioners freezing to death because of his penny-pinching policies, is not the Prime Minister reminded of the tale of the king's new clothes? Can he tell the House just what is different about his premiership, when it is apparent to all that, if he is not altogether naked, he is simply wearing the threadbare clothes of the previous Prime Minister?

I am not entirely sure that they would wholly suit me. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, I have to say that he left something out of his catalogue. For example, he omitted the work on the £55 million programme to transform a rundown area of Glasgow's east end. I should have thought that he would know about that. He also forgot that that programme will create 1,000 jobs in that part of Glasgow.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the level of public concern that has been expressed about media coverage of Gulf events—particularly reports from Baghdad. Does he agree that it is not incumbent upon either the BBC or ITN to sink to the levels of some foreign news organisations? Is not it particularly important at this time, when the wives and families of service men are watching television, that every effort should be made to ensure that the public are made well aware that any report coming out of Iraq is subject to very severe censorship?

I think it is clear to people that reports coming out of Baghdad are subject to censorship, and I hope that the BBC and the other transmission channels will make that clear on every occasion.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

In the light of the news from Moscow that President Gorbachev has given Saddam Hussein 48 hours to reply to his peace proposals, can the Prime Minister assure the House that no ground war will be launched by the coalition while those negotiations continue?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can seriously expect me, on this occasion or on any other occasion, to give information of a military sort. Certainly I can confirm that President Gorbachev sent to me late last night the proposals that he had put to Tariq Aziz.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen this excellent report of the North Western regional health authority, a copy of which I sent him? If so, he will have noted that the health authorities of Lancaster and Blackpool top the league in the immunisation against diphtheria of children under two. Those districts also have the lowest rates of death from cancer at all ages.

Yes, I have seen the brochure that my hon. Friend sent me. I congratulate all those concerned in the Blackpool and Lancaster districts on their achievement in respect of immunisation rates and the low rates of death from cancer. The national target for immunisation is 90 per cent., and that has been achieved. It is worth mentioning that the accelerated immunisation schedule for younger children and the introduction of the new GPs' contract should further improve the immunisation uptake figures nationwide. It is becoming clear that the health reforms are improving preventive medicine in a remarkable way.

Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study reports in today's press on the progress made to date on the internal Government review of the poll tax? Is he aware that those reports imply that no one involved in those review negotiations is in favour of the Government retaining the poll tax? If that is true, does not the right hon. Gentleman have a duty to make an early statement to the House and the country that, whatever options are still being considered, the poll tax is now well and truly ruled out?

We will make a statement at the end of our review and not before.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his commitment to an excellent education for all our children is widely supported and welcomed throughout the House and the nation? To that end, is he pleased that Her Majesty's inspectors' report shows that the first year of national curriculum maths is going extremely well for five and 11-year-olds and throughout the age range, and that children and teachers are working well to achieve that? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate them?

Yes, I am happy to do as my hon. Friend suggests. The report demonstrates that the national curriculum has stimulated a range of improvements in schools and that teachers have worked hard to take advantage of the opportunities. That can be only to the benefit of the children and I look to see it continue.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Given the expected statement this afternoon by the Secretary of State for the Environment giving poll tax exemption to forces serving in the Gulf, will the Prime Minister this afternoon agree to extend exemption from this vicious tax to all deserving groups, such as the nurses?

The hon. Lady and her colleagues will carry more weight on the community charge matter when all of them pay their community charge and their fair share of local government taxation. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady has already done so. [HON. MEMBERS: "She has not."' I note that the hon. Lady has not and I hope that others will have noted that, too.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have paid my poll tax.

The community charge reduction scheme will help 18 million people who face community charge bills.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Despite the scaremongering from some local authorities, I welcome the community charge relief scheme, but will my right hon. Friend comment on the effects of that scheme throughout the country? If he had available the figures for Nottingham in particular. I and my constituents would welcome them.

As my hon. Friend knows, the community charge reduction scheme will make a significant difference to a large number of people this year with more than 18 million people being eligible for rebates under it. If Nottingham city council sets the same level next year as it did this year, a couple living in an averagely-rated property would receive a reduction of £238 between them.

Will the Prime Minister comment on the recent statement by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) that unless substantial funds are made available to the NHS before the end of the financial year, elderly people and people from other groups might die? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that statement? [Interruption.]

Order. I did not hear that.

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) sitting behind me says that he said no such thing.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Has the Prime Minister any up-to-date knowledge of the British airmen who were shot down or who ejected over enemy territory? Will he assure the House that any peace terms that are accepted will include as a priority the return of those airmen unharmed?

I wish that I could say to my hon. Friend that I had the information that she seeks. We have tried repeatedly but thus far have had no success in getting it. I share my hon. Friend's great concern about Iraq's failure to fulfil its commitments under the Geneva convention and to grant the Red Cross access to prisoners of war. We remain in constant touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross and are urging it to do everything possible to get Iraq to live up to its obligations. I agree very much with my hon. Friend that the immediate release of prisoners of war, including our airmen, must be part of any ceasefire.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

If President Saddam Hussein responds to the Soviet peace initiative with an undertaking to withdraw all his forces from Kuwait unconditionally, does the Prime Minister agree that the allies should respond by stopping the bombing and halting moves towards a ground war in Kuwait?

We are all aware that proposals have been put by President Gorbachev to Iraq. I confirmed that to the House earlier. In his message President Gorbachev specifically asked me to keep the proposals confidential. Therefore, upon those I can offer no substantial comment. In any case, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, we have to bear it in mind that it is the Iraqis who have been asked to respond, not us. We await a response from them. Nothing has yet happened which would incline us to agree to a ceasefire or a pause in the conflict. If Saddam Hussein wants to avoid a land battle, he knows what he must do: he has to withdraw unconditionally and immediately from Kuwait and implement the Security Council resolutions in full. Unless and until he does that, the conflict will continue.