To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the ratio of civil servants to active service personnel in 1966, 1976, 1986 and projected after "Options for Change" has been implemented.

The ratio of United Kingdom-based civil servants to active service personnel on 1 April each year was as follows: in 1966, there were 65 civilians for every 100 service personnel; by 1976 it had risen to 72; in 1986 it had fallen to 53 civilians for every 100 service personnel; and the projected ratio after options in 1996 is down to 48 civilians.

My right hon. Friend will appreciate the concerns of the older generation in this country, who saw the events of the 1930s unfold and develop into the second world war. Can he assure the House that the pen pushers and paper shufflers have not saved their jobs at the expense of the teeth arms? Does he agree that it is hypocritical for the Liberal Democrats to criticise our defence policy when their policy is for a 50 per cent. cut and they would never have built Trident submarines to act as the nation's nuclear deterrent?

I give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he sought. There will be a significant reduction, as there has been in the last 10 years; there has been a 28 per cent. real reduction in civil servants and civilians working in the Ministry of Defence as against a 3 per cent. reduction in the armed services. There will be a further 20,000 reduction, to which I have referred, in the civilian sphere.

Would the Secretary of State care to say what percentage reduction will occur, if the Conservatives are still in power, in the year 2000, bearing in mind the existing defence budget?

We are making a reduction of 21 per cent. in numbers across the board and I have said that, looking to the next three years, we envisage a reduction of about 6 per cent. in real terms. I do not think I was misrepresenting the hon. and learned Gentleman, since I understand that he has owned up to recommending the policy of a 50 per cent. cut by the year 2000. I have no objection to people holding views genuinely, but they must come forward and state them honestly to the House—or are we stuck with a review of a review of a review?

First, can my right hon. Friend confirm that those who leave the Ministry of Defence, be they civilians or service men, will be given retirement terms that fully reflect the loyalty of their service? Secondly, can he confirm that it will be a cardinal point of his defence review that the armed forces will, in the longer term, continue to provide a good career structure?

Very much so. We must make some painful decisions now on the latter point—which will involve some redundancies—precisely to ensure that, in the smaller structure, the promotion opportunities continue as they are at present. We must make certain that there is a proper structure at the different ranks and ages. As for my hon. Friend's first point, we are most anxious to ensure that we deal fairly with people who may have given long service, both in the armed forces and in the civilian sections of the Ministry of Defence. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will have more to say about that later today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on employment of reductions in defence expenditure.

Employment considerations are among the many factors that we take into account.

Is the Minister aware that the British public will find it appalling that, in one and a half hours of speeches made yesterday by the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State, not a word was said about the employment implications and the implications for manufacturing industry of the current defence review? Have the Government a corporate approach to these matters? What is being done to help manufacturing industries to diversify and to avoid the huge losses in skills and livelihoods that now loom large?

I note that the hon. Gentleman has recycled a rather tired cliché of Labour party—it can hardly be called policy; Labour's industrial policy seems to be as confused as its military policy. It was, in fact, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—although that was thanks more to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter)—that the largest order for military equipment placed in the past two years was given to Vickers, for the Challenger 2 tank.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Royal Ordnance, Nottingham, is the only full gun-making facility in the United Kingdom? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the skills in that unique facility and the product that is made there are essential to the long-term security of our defence procurement? Will he give me some assurance that the Government will recognise those skills and that jobs in that unique unit will be protected?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's high estimation of the skills in the Royal Ordnance factory. They are deeply rooted in tradition, as well as being thoroughly up to date in current technology. Two of the most recent products not only have considerable appeal for our own forces, but have considerable export potential: I refer, of course, to the improved high-penetration 105 mm gun and to the air-portable howitzer.

Given the momentous changes in the Soviet Union over the summer—in particular, the dismantling of the KGB—are there any plans for a reduction in the number of people employed in the Ministry of Defence security services?

We are looking at every aspect of civilian employment in the Ministry of Defence, but, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, it is never our practice to discuss numbers, costs and activities in the security field.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to discuss future research and development arrangements with the British defence industry has been widely welcomed? Does he agree that, if we are to have a better-equipped Army, it is essential that we keep alive our research and development in British industry, so that that vital equipment can be provided?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I attach the highest importance to that and I intend—if the House will allow me—to enlarge on the subject when I open this afternoon's debate.

Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Office has set up a defence industries initiative to help communities and individuals who have been affected by reductions in the demand for defence products? Has any additional money been made available for that initiative, have any Government Departments—even his own—been involved in it and does he wish to extend it to the rest of the United Kingdom in accordance with Labour party policy?

This is a matter for the Scottish Office to answer. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the great defect in all Labour's pontifications on the subject. All these fine words are of absolutely no value unless they are quantified in terms of financial assistance. If they are to be so quantified, on whose budget does this financial assistance fall and how much is it to be? As I say, that is a matter for the Scottish Office, but my understanding is that this is purely advisory.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the involvement of British forces in ensuring that Iraq's military nuclear capacity is removed.

The Ministry of Defence is providing military and civilian experts and technical equipment to help the UN Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency to eliminate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction under Security Council resolution 687.

If Saddam Hussein is still building up his nuclear capacity, as President Bush contends, given what we now know about his nuclear capability does not it prove that to continue with the policy of sanctions alone would have been foolish indeed?

There is significant evidence to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein has under-declared, misrepresented and concealed Iraq's ability in all areas—nuclear, chemical and biological. Particularly in the case of nuclear, we are now satisfied that he could have had a working explosive device by 1993. The scale of these developments and the determination of the Iraqis to seek to pursue them are now being apprehended by the positive approach that we have taken—the initiatives taken in the liberation of Kuwait and now in the pursuit of identifying and destroying these weapons of mass destruction. It is abundantly clear that the policy advice that we had from the Opposition—to carry on with sanctions for longer and longer—would have been totally catastrophic.

If the United Nations Commission reports that British firms were involved in the build-up of Iraqi nuclear weapons, will the Secretary of State promise today that such information will be made public?

There is an investigation into the full range. I referred the House to the fact that, as part of our determination, more than 2,000 documents have been recovered. The initiative of this Government, working with the United Nations, is now bringing that information to light. I have already said that the documents have revealed the extent to which the Iraqis went to disguise the true purpose of their purchases. The record that I was able to read out was evidence enough of the Government's determination to play their part.

Rubbish!

Rubbish? The Government played a major part in seeing that these arms and these programmes were brought to light. We shall pursue that policy until they are destroyed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British involvement extends to eliminating Iraq's chemical and biological capability as well as its nuclear capability? That is essential. Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that the United Nations can rely upon the full commitment of every resource that we have to this end as soon as possible?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can certainly give him that assurance. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the very substantial scale of Iraq's chemical capability. It is four times the initial declaration that it made. As for the biological capability, I informed the House yesterday that we have now established that Saddam Hussein has the ability to produce a very substantial amount of chemical warfare agents. We shall ensure that they are fully destroyed.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the whole House is glad that the United Nations initiative has been so successful and that the evidence is coming forward? Will he ensure that that information is made public when it is applicable to Britain? If appropriate, will he guarantee that, in conjunction with his ministerial colleagues elsewhere, the companies guilty of supplying the Iraqis with devices—either unwittingly or wittingly, because ignorance of the law is no excuse—will be brought to account, so we can show the rest of the world that we wish to have no dealings in this kind of illegal nuclear trade?

We take this matter very seriously. If the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the actions of, for instance, customs and excise and the activities at London airport on another occasion, he will know the steps to which we go to apprehend weapons that might have been illegally exported. If anybody is guilty of breaking any law, of course they will be brought to justice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the implications of the "Options for Change" review on the number and deployment of Ulster Defence Regiment battalions.

As part of his statement on the restructuring of the Army on 23 July my right hon. Friend announced that the Ulster Defence Regiment is to be integrated more fully into the Army by merging with the Royal Irish Rangers to create a new regiment. This new regiment will comprise one battalion for worldwide service and up to seven battalions for service in Northern Ireland. It is intended that members of the UDR will transfer to the home service battalions and will undertake the range of duties currently discharged by the UDR.

I thank the Minister for repeating that statement. As he knows, we are prepared to give the changes a fair wind, subject to finding a more suitable name for the new regiment. My question is directed towards the implications of the "Options for Change" review, particularly in light of the Secretary of State's reaffirmation yesterday that there will be a 24-month interval between unaccompanied tours. Is not it a simple fact that one cannot rotate up to 20 battalions a year through Northern Ireland and at the same time reduce to a total of 38 battalions? Does not that imply either a serious restructuring of the nature of regular Army deployment in Northern Ireland or some significant changes in the way in which the UDR will operate?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving the proposals a fair wind. We are grateful for the support from within the Province. The name of the regiment was discussed at some length and several other ideas were suggested. This was the agreed name reached by the colonels of the regiment and I think that we must leave that judgment with them. It is important to take into account the bipartisan nature of the new regiment, which will recruit from the Catholic as well as the Protestant community. That will be one of its strengths in the future.

May I appeal to the Minister to think again about the name of the new regiment and to retain the distinguished name of the Ulster Defence Regiment in view of the dedication and expertise of the men and women who have faced terrorism for so many years and because of the supreme sacrifice made by many members of that distinguished regiment?

It was precisely because we owe so much to the Ulster Defence Regiment that we felt that it was important to integrate it more fully with the regular British Army, as we are doing in the proposals. I am afraid that serious thought has been given to the name and it is unlikely that we shall be changing it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Britain's amphibious capability.

The United Kingdom will be retaining an amphibious capability. We intend to replace and modernise the specialist shipping which supports our amphibious forces.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that Iraq had to deploy a number of forces on the Kuwaiti coast to deal with the potential amphibious landing? Is not it essential that, when we are reducing the size of our standing Army in Germany, we should retain a strong amphibious capability and that early plans should be produced for the replacement of HMS Fearless and Intrepid?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I value his support and I hope that we shall be referring to this later at greater length. My hon. Friend is right that an amphibious capability is inseparable from our approach which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, is smaller but better. The better means being more flexible, more responsive, harder hitting and faster reacting and an amphibious capability is an essential component of that.

It is one thing to acknowledge, as the Minister does, the need for flexibility and mobility and the implications that were made clear in yesterday's debate about force projection and even out-of-area, but we need the means of tranferring our armed forces into those areas. When will the Government's undertakings, which have been freely and helpfully given, be translated into budgetary commitments?

I shall have more to say about that later this afternoon, but my respect for the hon. Gentleman is such that I shall allow him to draw from me the assurance that I expect to award the project definition contract next month.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Swan Hunter has spent considerable time and skill on considering what might be done to enhance our amphibious capability? Will he confirm that a helicopter-carrying aviation support ship could figure in those plans?

Yes, I gladly confirm that. I very much appreciate the skilful and inventive qualities of all our shipyards and the amount of time that they devote to this subject, which is extending and projecting our amphibious power.

I welcome the Minister's statement that there will be a replacement for Intrepid and Fearless. Labour welcomes that and we hope that it can be kept to time and that there is not the same slippage as there has been with the type 23 frigates. Given yesterday's announcement that Endurance is being replaced by a boat that will be leased from Norway, will he give a categorical assurance that, first, the replacement will be a new-build boat rather than one leased from another country and, secondly, that it will be built in the United Kingdom and that tenders will not be invited from shipyards abroad?

I can certainly give the latter assurance. I shall deal with this later, but I cannot resist a dig at the hon. Gentleman, who referred last night to the need for stability in our warship ordering. I do not know whether he was articulating Labour party policy, but the stability that he envisages would hang pretty heavily over the dole queues in our shipbuilding cities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safe transport of nuclear warheads in the United Kingdom.

Safety is a paramount consideration in the transport of nuclear weapons. It is ensured by rigorous training and operational procedures and by the robustness of the weapons, their containers and the road transport vehicles. We have an excellent safety record and we are determined to maintain it.

Does the Minister recall that I have been worried about this matter ever since nuclear weapons were taken through the centre of the city of Leicester in the rush hour? Will he please consider the setting up of an independent oversight panel such as the Drell panel in the House of Representatives in the USA and not simply say that it cannot happen here and wait for something dreadful to occur? We need independent oversight of the transport of nuclear weapons by road.

It is very alarmist to say that we are waiting for an accident to occur; I do not think that that helps anybody. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will make a statement on nuclear safety later today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland, where nuclear deterrent submarines are based, we recognise the need to move warheads and that he has the support of Conservative Members on that? I hope that when he considers other proposed changes he will recognise that that support has never been short in coming.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. That reminds one of the massive investment that we are making in nuclear facilities in Scotland, for which we rarely get any thanks from the Opposition.

How can the Minister justify the transportation of nuclear materials from Iraq to Dounreay? Has Scotland been reduced to a dumping ground for a nuclear capability that western nations, including Britain, were responsible for creating?

There is no question of Scotland's being treated as a dumping ground. As I have already said, Scotland has been treated to the enormous investment project of our nuclear bases and it is about time that we were given credit for the amount of employment and investment that has taken place in Scotland as a result of placing our nuclear facilities there.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the improved international situation must make the transportation of these dangerous nuclear weapons far less likely in future?

Clearly, it is right to the extent that we shall not usually deploy nuclear weapons at sea. There will be correspondingly less transportation of nuclear weapons to take that into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet NATO Ministers to discuss the strategy of nuclear deterrence.

I will meet my NATO colleagues this week at the nuclear planning group meeting in Sicily, where we will discuss a range of current nuclear issues.

As the Government have already welcomed the unilateral cuts in nuclear weapons announced individually by Presidents Bush and Gorbachev, why are they still refusing to make any real cuts in Britain's nuclear weapons? Are the Government still obsessed with the cold war mentality beyond the end of the cold war? If they believe that nuclear weapons are essential to the defence of this country, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House against which enemies our weapons of mass destruction are targeted?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully, because I have already announced our intention to scrap our theatre nuclear weapons—the short-range weapons, the Lance missiles. Earlier, I announced a reduction in the number of dual-capable aircraft. There will be a significant reduction. When the hon. Gentleman has the courtesy to read the NATO communiqué, which will emerge from the meeting tomorrow and the day after, he will see significant changes. The only change that he will not see is that, unlike him, we are not prepared to abandon our nuclear deterrent while other people have nuclear weapons pointed at us. I know that the hon. Gentleman's view is sincerely held. We believe that that view is held by a majority of Opposition Members who have not changed their response at all.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent developments in the former Soviet Union, although welcome in many respects, create an even more complex nuclear situation than before? Does he agree that the danger of these weapons proliferating and falling under the control of authorities that have not really understood the concept of the nuclear deterrent in the past means that NATO now needs a new strategy of nuclear deterrence that includes the possibility of intervention in order to prevent one minor power using a nuclear weapon against another?

My hon. Friend makes a perceptive comment. In my speech yesterday I said that the major massive threat that we faced from the totality of the Warsaw pact—the Soviet Union and its satellites—may have gone, but the quality of the threat and the dangers that exist are real. That is particularly so in terms of the custody possession of nuclear weapons and the number of countries that have developed a missile capability and the number that undoubtedly will have a nuclear capability by the year 2000. My hon. Friend draws attention to the great foolishness of those Opposition Members who want to get rid of our nuclear weapons at a time when a minimum deterrent is an essential safeguard for our country.

Given the right hon. Gentleman's statement a moment ago, will he confirm that the Government now accept that the unilateral abandonment of certain nuclear weapons is part of Government policy and that, if circumstances permit, they will pursue that line until more nuclear weapons have been removed?

I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can possibly sustain the idea of unilateralism. President Bush made a proposal to the Soviet Union and President Gorbachev responded smartly. There is the prospect of substantial multilateral reductions—with NATO speaking from a position of strength—which will result in a much more significant reduction in nuclear weapons in the world than would ever have been achieved by the efforts of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Is not there an important lesson to be learnt from the discovery of Iraq's potential nuclear capability in ensuring that we maintain our Trident nuclear deterrent to meet the unexpected?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—that is precisely the point. As I said yesterday, maintaining both the Trident nuclear deterrent, or strategic nuclear deterrent, and a sub-strategic nuclear deterrent, or dual-capable aircraft, is an important element. We want a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons in the world, but we must ensure that, while other people have nuclear weapons, we maintain the basic minimum capability to defend ourselves. That is the prudent position. That is the position that the British people want. It is not the position in which the majority of Opposition Members believe.

Would the Secretary of State care to tell us where he proposes to procure the sub-strategic element to which he has just referred, given that the United States Government have just cancelled their contract with Boeing for SRAM-T short-range attack missiles? Will he follow the American example and set this provocative and unnecessary capability aside for the time being?

The hon. Gentleman can make that comment only if he totally ignores the wide range of alternative options that the United States has in terms of sub-strategic weapons. We have a number of alternative approaches to the issue of a sub-strategic weapon and we shall continue with our analysis of those.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British forces in Turkey as part of the instant response force.

United Kingdom forces have played and continue to play a major part in helping to ensure the safety of Iraqi citizens in northern Iraq. On 30 August, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the deployment of eight Jaguar aircraft to south-east Turkey to reinforce the air element of the deterrent force. These aircraft continue to provide an important contribution. The United States air element was also strengthened at the end of September and at the same time, as part of this overall restructuring process, the coalition ground forces were withdrawn. The continuing presence of British and coalition forces demonstrates our determination that renewed repression will not be tolerated.

Is not the success of Operation Safe Haven and the saving of tens of thousands of civilian Kurdish lives a tribute to the armed forces of this country and especially to the Royal Marines?

Yes, indeed. I certainly support that point and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it. Great admiration was shown for the way in which the Marines conducted themselves in northern Iraq and it is a great tribute to the training that they had in Northern Ireland which gave them a unique capability there.

Can the Minister tell us what knowledge the British armed services in Turkey have of the activities of the Turkish air force in bombing Kurdish villages in Iraq? Is he aware that I visited the village of Xerezok in August? It was recently bombed by the Turkish air force and many innocent civilians were killed as a result. Will he put all the pressure that he can on the Turkish Government to cease their bombardment of innocent Kurdish people living in northern Iraq who have suffered enough in the past years and who are seeking their own peace and self-determination?

The point must be made that that was action against the Kurdish Workers' Party—the PKK—a Kurdish terrorist organisation which has no support from other Kurdish groups in northern Iraq. Exactly what tactics the Turks are deploying must be a matter for them. However, the fact is that they are reacting against a terrorist organisation. Clearly, we condemn any bombing of civilians and children.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future plans there are for the proof and experimental establishment ranges at Foulness island.

A review to assess the future of the proof and experimental establishments is in hand. It is too early to comment on the outcome of this review. We expect to make a decision in the first part of next year.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the long history of service of the Foulness Rangers in testing artillery equipment? Will he accept, therefore, that their considerable experience should be borne in mind, especially at this time when defence needs are being reviewed?

I certainly recognise the valuable work undertaken at Foulness. I also pay tribute to the support that my hon. Friend has always given to the establishment. However, there is overcapacity at our seven proof and experimental establishments. We have, therefore, to address that and to have a review. We hope to resolve the uncertainty as soon as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the refitting programme for Polaris submarines.

I have received a small number of representations from hon. Members on the refitting, repair and maintenance of Polaris submarines.

Can the Minister explain why he and his ministerial colleagues, and senior civil servants, continu-ally refuse to answer questions on Polaris in the House and in the Select Committee on Defence but are happy to allow Ministry of Defence officials to brief journalists and to appear on the "This Week" programme to comment on the Polaris submarine? Is not it time that we had open government, and that we were told clearly whether HMS Revenge will have a third refit and why Polaris submarines are not now considered safe enough to visit foreign ports, but are considered safe enough to operate in Scottish ports?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is not the practice of this Government—or of previous Governments—to comment on the material state of nuclear submarines in Commission or refit, but I can assure the House that no nuclear submarine would put to sea without the approval and advice of the independent nuclear-powered warships safety committee. It is right to remind the House that, under Labour, there would be no SSNs: in his speech yesterday, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) implied that Labour would build no more nuclear-powered submarines.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in sniping at the Polaris refit, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) underlines his opposition to the nuclear deterrent—unfortunately shared by two thirds of the Labour party?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We all know that the official policy of the Labour party is not to have an independent nuclear deterrent. That is the view of the majority of Labour Members and that is the view which the country will know when the time comes to make the decision.

Is the Minister aware of the view of Greenpeace that there is a high exposure risk to workers on those Polaris submarines because of faulty reactors? Do the Government care anything for those workers' interests, or are they to be the nuclear test veterans of the next decade?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we care deeply for the well-being of our workers. He should understand that we have just reviewed the allowed limits, which have been reduced to not more than 100 mSv over five years. If anyone receives exposure to approaching 15 mSv in any one year—and there are very few who do—we review his case very carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on his plans for the restructuring of the British Army.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his "Options for Change" programme.

I have received numerous representations on the plans set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and in the White Paper "Britain's Army for the 90s".

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a reduction in manpower in our armed forces places even greater importance on the quality of training and equipment to allow us to maintain a truly effective fighting force? Does he also agree that the existence of fewer forces in the infantry places greater importance—not less— on the future of the Territorial Army? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the TA will be maintained?

I can certainly give the assurance that we shall seek to maintain a very effective Territorial Army. Consultation is taking place at present and I hope that we shall have more news well before the end of the year.

Given the importance of supporting a flexible and mobile response, is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Somerset, there is a welcome for his recent order of the anti-submarine helicopter from Westland and an expectation that he will ensure that the Royal Marines and the Light Infantry are properly supported and equipped?

Having some distant knowledge of that county myself, I can certainly echo my hon. Friend's remarks. Moreover, my hon. Friend knows that no fewer than 350 contractors across the country will be involved in the order for the Westland helicopter. That underlines my point about our being prepared to invest in the defence of our country. We are prepared to do that. The Opposition call for further cuts, yet pretend to support every equipment purchase. That is blind hypocrisy on their part because they know that they could not afford it.

In view of the massive petition that was presented to Parliament yesterday on behalf of the Staffords, and in view of the powerful case that they have advanced, will the Secretary of State please reconsider his unpopular decision? I ask that on behalf of all the people of Staffordshire and the west midlands—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Cheshire"]—Yes, and Cheshire.

I obviously regret that the famous traditions of any regiment are affected by the changes, but they are inevitable in the proposals that we have announced. The hon. Gentleman had better have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, because barely two weeks ago he announced that he thought that the Government's plans to reduce British troop levels in Germany did not go far enough and that Labour would consider a much smaller presence. The hon. Gentleman may believe that he would have a better chance under a Labour Government, but it is clear that it is Labour's policy that there should be fewer regiments.

Can the Secretary of State tell us what proportion of regular troops he envisages will constitute our contribution to the rapid reaction force? Can he confirm reports that the British contribution to the rapid reaction force may be as low as 60 per cent. of regulars? If it is as low as that, was that explained to our allies in NATO when we bid for the leadership of the rapid reaction force?

As we said yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will give those figures when he replies to the debate tonight. However, I noticed that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) did not deny newspaper reports that his colleague, the hon. Member for Clackmannan, has called for bigger reductions in the British Army. The House can see for itself the hypocrisy of pretending to criticise our plans when Labour intends to go further.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing will prevent the dismantling of Saddam Hussein's capability to manufacture nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction?

My hon. Friend made a particular personal contribution in the Gulf war and I therefore understand why he has made that point. I am happy to give him that assurance. He will agree that this country has played a major part in securing resolution 687 which stated that we would seek, identify and destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. As a result of the United Kingdom's initiative and of the courage of members of the teams including scientists from several countries under United Nations auspices, it is becoming clear just how extensive and advanced was Iraq's nuclear weapons capability. [Interruption.] I do not understand why Opposition Members are reacting in that way, because they must know that this is one of the most crucial international issues at the moment. The Iraqi Government are still trying to cling to it and are still cheating and lying. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) that they will not be permitted to succeed. One way or another, their nuclear capability must go, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear. [Interruption.]

Order. This is a very important matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government propose to do to stop the process of privatisation of the national health service?

The first thing is to make it clear— time and again—as I believe the right hon. Gentleman now knows, that there is no question of privatisation. [Interruption.] That is why the right hon. Gentleman is now retreating to his charge of creeping privatisation. Let me tell him what that amounts to. It amounts to issues like contracting out of services and competitive tendering. It amounts also to other issues to ensure better reforms of the health service. Even allowing for all the savings that Labour claims that it would make, the net loss to patient care as a result of Labour's proposals for abolishing competitive tendering and charges and introducing a statutory minimum wage—proposals that would cost nearly £400 million a year—is equivalent to 400,000 fewer acute in-patient treatments or 16,000 fewer heart transplants, 12,000 fewer liver transplants or 40,000 fewer kidney transplants. That is the point the Leader of the Opposition has refused to answer. The policies that we are pursuing are not creeping privatisation, they are achieving proper reforms to ensure that the resources are better directed to patient care.

rose——

Tell the truth.

rose——

Lies—[Interruption.]

Withdraw that remark.

Withdraw.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows —[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been a custom—[Interruption.]

Order. No point of order arises. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the comment.

In accordance with your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "lies". We do not lie in the House of Commons.

There is another withdrawal in order. It is the withdrawal of opt-outs and privatisation, for which the Government have no mandate.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is engaging in the smears and fears again? There is no question of national health trust hospitals being outside the national health service. On eye test charges, he will know that about 40 per cent. of the population do not have to pay for those eye charges. Is he really saying that he would abolish them and thus deprive patients with serious hospital needs from getting the extra resources that he would take away? Is that what he is saying? On elderly people in homes, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the number of elderly people supported by public funds in residential care has more than doubled since 1979.

The more the Government protest, the less the Government are believed. Is it not clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, when people have to pay for services at the point of use that were free at the point of use, that is privatisation in anyone's language?

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Labour Government supported the idea of some charges in the health service? He simply has to answer the question that we have increased resources of more than 50 per cent. in real terms in the health service. He is putting forward the only proposals that seem to be different. The only proposals that he can possibly say are creeping privatisation, are actually designed to improve the amount of money that goes direct to patient care. He has failed to answer the question why he would pursue that policy and thus deprive patients of operations which are currently taking place.

When the Leader of the Opposition refers to opt-out hospitals, is it not the case——

Order. Please deal with Government policy.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that in response to his recent remarks, the opting out of NHS hospitals is simply the return to their status before 1974, as in the case of teaching hospitals which were then hospital trusts? Is it not the case that a large number of those hospitals wish to have the management of their own affairs in that state to which they were accustomed before 1974?

I would go further than my hon. Friend. The reforms are ensuring better use of resources in the health service directly on patient care. The reason why we are getting wholly unfounded smears and fears is that the Labour party has nothing to say about improving the management of the national health service.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

I have been asked to reply.

On the subject of facts and figures, does the Leader of the House recall that on 8 November last year the Prime Minister forecast that there would be a surplus on the Budget account of about £3 billion? He was wrong. The Chancellor of I he Exchequer, in the budget for this year forecast a deficit on the Budget account of £8,000 million. He was wrong again, because the forecast for this year looks like being at least £18 billion. The truth is that the Government cannot get their economic sums right, and that is why they cannot be believed on the national health service or anything else. The Tory Government would not recognise the truth if it were sprayed on their eyeballs.

This Government have succeeded in achieving a rate of economic growth throughout the 1980s that has been a good deal faster than in previous decades. That is why we have been able to increase spending on the national health service and in many other areas. It comes very rich from the hon. Gentleman's party to accuse us about issues relating to public expenditure when we know that the Labour party has already committed itself to an increased expenditure bill of £35,000 million.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Birmingham is blessed with a superb education system based on choice? We have six grammar schools, a city technology college on our border, a growing number of grant-maintained schools and many church schools. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will maintain that element of choice in our education system, in contrast to the Labour party which is intent on nationalising all that choice?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have visited that city technology college and some of the grant-maintained schools. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the reforms that we are undertaking and the extra choice that we are giving are raising educational standards and increasing parental choice. It is very noticeable that grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges are increasingly popular with parents because demand for places at them is rising substantially. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Labour party would abolish that choice.

How does the Leader of the House reconcile a Government who say that they want to privatise British Rail with a Prime Minister who appears to want to run British Rail? Is not the problem the fact that the travelling public are now paying in full for the Government's 11-year neglect of our rail system, and is not the answer to give BR access to the private markets to increase investment and to give private services access to the rail network to increase competition?

At present, BR is engaged on a massive programme of capital investment to improve services. I believe that the public are prepared to pay more in charges to secure that improvement in services. As for the charge about the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend had a view to express about those lines that were faced with a higher-than-average increase to reflect the benefits of extra investment and better services. In the case of one line, he said that that should happen only when the better services were delivered. That is the citizens charter already operating.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend been able to study the case of my constituent who stands to lose his job and is being victimised at his place of work because of his support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-poll tax campaign, despite the fact that 30 of his workmates take the same view and are not being sacked? Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter? He will understand that on this occasion I cannot name my constituent, but his job is as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)—[Interruption.]

Order. Time is getting on.

Far be it from me to intrude into the private grief of the Labour party, but I noticed that the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour party said today:

"The NEC decision to suspend them"—

"has no bearing on the parliamentary party. This is not on the agenda."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

I have been asked to reply.

Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has been preaching democracy in Zimbabwe today, is the Leader of the House aware that this Government allow people to choose, so they say? If that is the case, why do they not allow people to choose whether hospitals should opt out?

That is precisely what the Government have been doing. They have done so not only in that respect but in grant-maintained schools and in many other areas. They have increased the range of choice for pensions, savings and so on. It is a marked contrast with the Labour party.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend will know that council tenants in Labour-controlled boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham pay high rents and receive a poor level of service for repairs and maintenance. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the citizens charter tenants have the right to insist on a proper standard of service from their councils? That is a service which council tenants already pay for in their rent.

Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance about the citizens charter. Later this year the new tenants charter will be published. It will strengthen the rights of council tenants to secure proper repairs and maintenance for their homes. We shall also introduce compulsory competitive tendering in housing management, which will ensure that tenants, as much as those who currently own their homes, receive the benefits of competition and the best possible service. I have sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend makes.

"Social services and education are in a shambles yet the party only pretends to deal with these problems through cosmetic reorganisations."