To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made over the evaluation of the European fighter aircraft.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on developments in the post-prototype additional studies for the revised EFA project.

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

In August the four Governments concerned commissioned studies into ways of reducing the costs of the EFA programme; we also agreed to review the operational requirement in the light of recent changes in the international security situation. The first of these studies has now reported. I am pleased to say that it shows that the production costs can be reduced by up to 20 per cent. while still meeting the military requirement in full; that further savings, up to 30 per cent., shows also possible; and that the EFA offers better value for money than the seven alternative designs which were considered.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that encouraging reply. As important as the European fighter aircraft is, does he agree that it is even more important that the United Kingdom retains its design and build capacity for not only the EFA but EFAs of the future, unless this country wants to be reliant upon foreign supply—probably a monopoly—with all the price and cost implications that that would mean?

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. If we were to purchase our fighter requirements from overseas rather than continue with the British design and British manufacture, that would make it difficult and complicate the possibility at any future date of fighter aircraft being designed and manufactured in this country.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which was extremely considered and careful. Will he confirm that what he said in his main and supplementary answers confirms conclusively that this vital and indispensable high-technology defence project must go ahead on the basis of the revised figures and that it will be possible to continue the project without our partners?

I very much hope that it will be possible to continue with all four countries participating in the programme. Both the Italian and Spanish Defence Ministers have indicated that they are impressed by the. savings that have been identified by the report. I recall that Mr. Volker Rũhe, the German Defence Minister, said on 21 September that the new fighter aircraft should cost not more than DM90 million. I hope that he will be encouraged to know that the work that has now been done identifies that that target can be achieved. I hope that, on that basis, Germany also should feel able to agree to continue with the project.

Does the Secretary of State accept that almost all the developing technologies that will feature in tomorrow's aerospace business, both military and civil, are part and parcel of the EFA development programme? Although many of us would like to see the companies that are involved in the EFA programme diversify more into civil products, is he aware that the short-term reality is that the continuation of the EFA programme is crucial to the future of our aerospace industry, which is of world class and second only to the United States in turnover?

That is the case. The arguments for the EFA programme must depend primarily on the United Kingdom's defence requirements, but the industrial implications are also significant. At the height of production about 28,000 jobs in the United Kingdom would be related to the EFA project and about 60,000 throughout Europe.

May I offer my support to the Secretary of State and congratulations on the way in which he has dealt with this issue, especially in the past two or three days when the provocations must have seemed nothing if not extreme? Can he confirm that in the event of' the project's proceeding in such a way that individual countries could, as it were, choose their own form of EFA programme, he is satisfied that the United Kingdom would acquire an aircraft adequate to meet all exigencies and provide a proper basis for any operations in which the Royal Air Force might find itself engaged?

Most of the work that has been done so far has involved the Rolls-Royce engines and the airframe. The technical study that has now been completed has identified that, even on the basis of current strategic requirements, savings of up to 20 per cent. could be achieved with the EFA programme. If we wish to go beyond that and reduce our requirement in terms of the components of the EFA programme—for example, in-flight refuelling or other specific qualities—savings of up to 30 per cent. could be made.

When my right hon. and learned Friend examines the EFA programme, will he never lose sight of the fact that the RAF and its pilots of the future must never be committed to battlefield conditions without at least enjoying parity in terms of the aircraft that are likely to oppose them? With Soviet air force equipment finding its way around the world, there is every likelihood that RAF pilots may come up against some of the most sophisticated of former Soviet aircraft.

Yes, I am conscious of the fact that twice in the past 10 years, unlike some European countries, our pilots have been called upon to use their fighter aircraft in actual combat—in the Falklands and the Gulf. We must be certain therefore that the aircraft available to our pilots are at least as good as those of any potential aggressor. We must also be conscious of the fact that Russia not only possesses sophisticated aircraft but has made it clear that it is willing to export them—including to unstable regimes in the middle east and elsewhere.

When does the Secretary of State expect to receive the review by the four national chiefs of staff of the EFA's military requirements? When will the four Governments concerned subsequently be able to announce that the EFA programme will go ahead—which we on these Benches believe is essential for Britain's military and industrial requirements?

We expect to receive the chiefs of staff report in three or four weeks. It is likely that a meeting of the four Defence Ministers will be held early in December, but it is not possible to say now whether they will reach a conclusion. I remind the House that the original timetable did not envisage production decisions until the spring of 1993. Matters were brought forward because of the German budgetary problems that were raised in the German Parliament earlier this year. There is still time available, without interfering with the fundamental programme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the defence research establishments.

As part of our continuing drive for improved value for money, the Defence Research Agency has made a series of proposals to rationalise its operations and reduce costs. They were set out in a consultative document published last month and we expect to reach decisions later this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for his diligence and courtesy in taking so much trouble to listen to my constituents' point of view. Does he acknowledge that the DRA's bridge-building facility at Christchurch is unique? The breadth of assumptions in the document to which he referred raise grave doubts—which I share—that any savings will be made by moving the expensive and irreplaceable capital equipment at Christchurch elsewhere? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the consultation will be genuine, and that my constituents will be given a further opportunity to make their views known to him?

I was glad to visit the Christchurch site with my hon. Friend earlier this year, and I pay tribute to the excellence of the professional skills that its staff have consistently shown. Unfortunately, the site is under-utilised and over-large, and considerable savings have been identified by the DRA's chief executive. I confirm that the consultation exercise is genuine and that I will be pleased to learn the views of my hon. Friend and of his constituents when they see me on 4 November.

Is the Minister aware that the defence research establishment at Aberporth in Dyfed has been used to test fire the Chilean Government's Rayo multiple-launch rocket system? Chile has made it clear that it is willing to sell that weapon to any country in the world that can afford it. Does that not make a nonsense of non-proliferation and of our attempts to prevent deadly weapons falling into the hands of third world and unstable Governments?

It is the British Defence Research Agency, not the Chilean Defence Research Agency, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's comments are correct.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for also seeing a delegation of my constituents about DRA jobs. Can my hon. Friend say what capital repayment terms or payback period he would expect from moving people around? He will know from his days in private industry that it looks for a two to three-year payback. The Treasury seems to look for something like a 20-year payback, and many of the agency's proposals envisage something like a 10-year payback.

The payback arrangements are governed by the normal Treasury rules, which may provide for a period of up to 25 years. When my hon. Friend visits me with his delegation, I shall certainly listen to the points about repayment that I understand that he wishes to make.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on the establishment of an arms diversification programme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding the establishment of a defence diversification agency.

We exchange views with industry on a wide range of matters, and we participate in the Department of Trade and Industry's regional seminars to help companies to adapt to changing market conditions. However, we have no plans to establish a defence diversification agency.

It would have been rather more courteous of the Minister to advise his questioners of the linking of questions 3 and 4.

It is the hon. Gentleman who is fighting the battles of yesterday, and they are battles that have always been lost. If he recollects the days of quangos such as the National Enterprise Board, he will realise that Government attempts to second-guess the elements to which industry should give priority—in connection with any sort of conversion or new policy—usually end with the Government helping to pick losers rather than winners.

May I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)? If the Government cannot at least have the competence and courtesy to inform us when two questions are linked, there is not much hope of their running the country properly.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) did not receive prior notification of the linking of the two questions—although I hardly think that it is an error of quite the magnitude that they have suggested.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the last thing that successful defence contractors want is to be told by the Government how to run their businesses? What they need is good information about the nature of the Government's long-term plans, and plenty of time in which to make any adjustments that may prove essential to the planning of their businesses. Will my hon. Friend commit himself and the Government to the maintaining of good communications with the defence contractors, to help them to make long-term plans?

My hon. Friend has made a good point. We are renewing our efforts to establish a strong and open dialogue with industry. In recent weeks, conferences such as the chief of defence procurement's suppliers' conference and the Seafacts '92 conference have provided excellent information about advance intentions in regard to defence spending, and about the current trends. All the industrialists whom I have met have been very satisfied with the amount of information that is now being provided. It has enabled them to make new plans in connection with diversification and other subjects.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past few months, there have been substantial job losses at the GEC—Marconi companies in Chelmsford, which rely heavily on defence contracts? May I have an assurance that, where it is feasible, the British Government will place their contracts with British companies to protect British jobs?

I can already tell my hon. Friend that more than 90 per cent. of Britain's £9 billion equipment budget is spent with British companies. That is a good record. If we were to seek deliberately to exclude foreign companies from business, we should in turn be excluded from the foreign export markets in which we are so remarkably successful. A balance must be struck, but I share entirely the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend.

All the Minister has done is to repeat what was said in June. Have the Government not learnt from the debacle over coal that market forces are not very good at determining an industrial strategy? If the peace dividend is to result in new jobs and new wealth for this country instead of more and more unemployment, the Government need to involve the unions and industry in devising an industrial strategy to replace defence jobs. The best way to do that is to set up a defence diversification agency.

All that the hon. Gentleman is doing is to repeat the same old themes that his party produced at the time of the groundnut scheme and of the National Enterprise Board. If he thinks that politicians can do a good job by telling companies such as GEC how to diversify, he needs to think again.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs in the United Kingdom are dependent on defence equipment expenditure.

We estimate that about 350,000 jobs in the United Kingdom are dependent on defence equipment expenditure, including those dependent on defence sales overseas.

I know that my hon. Friend does not need to be reminded yet again by me of the importance of defence expenditure to Portsmouth, so can he assure me that he will continue to remind the public as well as the defence industry that any alternative policy is one of swingeing cuts in defence expenditure, such as was proposed and passed yet again at the Labour party conference this year, that the Liberals are little better and that that policy is very much against the defence interests of this country?

My hon. Friend is right, as he represents a Portsmouth constituency, to remind us of the extraordinary resolutions passed at this year's Labour party conference. If those resolutions, which call for devastating defence cuts, were ever to be translated into political reality, they would mean the disappearance of at least a quarter of our armed forces and the redundancy of at least 100,000 workers in defence industries. Only this Government have a strong and credible policy for Britain's defences.

Is the Minister aware that the largest industrial complex in Scotland is Rosyth royal dockyard? Is he in particular aware that 4,200 direct jobs and many hundreds more indirect jobs depend upon the assurances that the Government and their Ministers have given since 1985? In particular, will he remind the present Chancellor of the Exchequer of what he said in 1985: that the Government's commitment to Rosyth was clear from the massive investment that they were making in the dockyard to carry out the Trident refit? Will the Minister therefore give Rosyth the assurance of a future and its work force the assurance of jobs for all of them?

I am well aware of the concerns that the hon. Lady expresses. Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have visited Rosyth and Devonport in recent weeks. No decision has yet been taken. Any press speculation and reports that have appeared are wrong. We are considering the matter carefully and we shall reach and announce a decision in due course.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the German Defence Minister came to this country not many weeks ago to discuss the future of the EFA programme. In the light of the startlingly good progress that has been made in reducing the cost of this worthwhile aircraft, can my hon. Friend tell us what the reaction of the German Defence Minister has been to that progress?

I should be unwise to second guess the reactions of the German Defence Minister, but I have no doubt that he has carefully and thoughtfully noted the fact that the new cost estimates are exactly in line with the requests that he made for a 30 per cent. reduction in the cost of the aircraft. I take considerable encouragement from the results that have been produced.

Does the Minister accept that the expenditure to which he referred, which will generate 350,000 jobs and £9,000 million worth of expenditure, will have a considerable economic effect? Is he aware that more than 50 per cent. of that expenditure will be made in south-east England, but less than 2 per cent. in Wales? Is not that a hidden regional policy working against areas outside the south-east?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's breakdown of the figures. My impression, without being able to check the figures, is that a much more substantial percentage of British defence spending goes to key aircraft factories, particularly in the north-west of England. I do not think that the imbalance is anything like as bad as he suggests. There is no regional policy in defence spending. We place our contracts on the basis of value for money and obtaining the best products at the best prices.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the all-important contract for maintenance work on the Trident boat, to which he has referred, will be placed on the basis of what is best for national security, cost effectiveness and value for money, and that, accordingly, it will be awarded to Devonport Management Ltd., on whose future many thousands of jobs in Plymouth depend?

My hon. Friend is a forceful advocate of Devonport, just as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire) is a forceful advocate of Rosyth. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I are ensuring that we take a fair and even-handed approach to the problem, which I hope will result in a fair and just decision.

On jobs and defence, does the Minister appreciate that Labour believes that there are overwhelming strategic demands for the retention of the naval dockyards at both Rosyth and Devonport? Will he assure the House that no decision will be made to close either of the yards on narrow, short-term financial and ideological calculations?

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall take the broadest strategic view, although value for money is a strong and important consideration. I assure him that the decision will be a fair and carefully considered one.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the establishment of regional branches of the National Employers Liaison Committee; and what roles he perceives these as playing in the enhancement of the reserve forces.

Contact at local level between employers and the reserve forces is via the 14 regional, territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations, each of which has its own committee to deal with employer support.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the NELC on the remarkable job that it has done, on a relatively small budget, in attracting employers' support for the reserve forces? Does he agree that there is considerable scope for the NELC to keep alive the interest of the business community in defence issues in these difficult and dangerous times?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's comments. We value our links with the NELC highly, and it is currently involved in discussions on the mix of the regular-reserve forces. I certainly support that, and agree that, as we may become more dependent on reserves, links with the NELC are very valuable indeed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to conduct a comparison of the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the services provided by the Army's manning and record offices and regimental pay offices in York, and of other Army manning and record offices and regimental pay offices, before he decides about the siting of any integrated Army personnel centre outside London.

A study is currently examining the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of establishing an integrated Army personnel centre outside London. That would involve the collocation of the adjutant general and military secretary's headquarters and their staff, with all the manning and record offices and regimental pay offices. The study is looking at the operation as a whole and does not entail a comparison of the relative efficiency of existing offices.

When the Minister takes his decision, will he give due weight to the fact that already this year it has been announced that 1,200 Ministry of Defence civilian jobs in Harrogate will go, while 250 civilian jobs at the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers' workshop at Strensall have also gone? The losses come on top of a reduction from 9,500 to 5,500 in the number of Ministry of Defence civilian jobs in Yorkshire in the past decade.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are studying proposals to collocate all the offices in one place. We are thinking in terms of about 1,500 employees in 200,000 sq. ft. of office space. We are considering a number of locations, including York. We have the advantage that if we locate the new office in a place where we already have an office, we shall have a core of workers who will help to establish the new, much bigger collocated offices. No decisions have yet been taken and we shall consider all locations around the country.

The closures of the Harrogate and Strensall Ministry of Defence facilities have been greeted with dismay. Many people who have served the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces well over many years are pinning their hopes on the relocation of the integrated personnel centre to the York area. If York is good enough as a centre for the Department for Education, for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and for many other commercial firms, it should be good enough for the Ministry of Defence.

I hope that I have already made it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no prejudice against York. We are considering a number of other locations as well, as is only fair.

What criteria does the Minister use when he makes such decisions? Does he take into account the level of unemployment in the area and does he give the necessary information to enable the trade unions to make an objective judgment about whether the Ministry is right or wrong?

The basic criterion we adopt is that of value for money. Of course, we taken into account the local conditions of unemployment, because that improves our chances of recruiting people locally to man the offices. There are many different considerations in the process. Once we come to a proposal, we put it to the trade unions. There is always a consultation period during which the trade unions can put forward their ideas about how they see us going forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on progress made by United Kingdom forces in the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia.

As part of the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia, the United Kingdom has provided 38 military observers, 13 mine clearance training experts and 70 Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel to act as naval monitors. They are making a significant and high-quality contribution, in difficult and demanding circumstances, towards the success of the United Nations operation in Cambodia.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is a further and very welcome example of the commitment of the United Nations throughout the world to achieving a major peacekeeping role?

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. In 1991, there were only 11,500 United Nations troops deployed in peacekeeping operations. Today, there are more than 51,000. The United Kingdom and many other countries are performing a far more enhanced role in contributing towards helping to deal with countries with significant problems of instability or internal strife.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding housing needs for redundant service men.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations regarding the housing needs of redundant service personnel.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities, including South Cambridgeshire district council, do not believe that having been resident in married quarters in a district is sufficient contact with the area for the people concerned to be accepted on to the housing waiting list? As a result, when service men are being made redundant from bases in my constituency, they find themselves with nowhere to go. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the housing position, especially bearing in mind the fact that many of the bases have many vacant quarters on them, and find a way forward so we can ensure that service men who are being made redundant, many of whom have served in the Gulf, are not left homeless without anywhere to go?

Yes, although I hope that the situation is not as bad as my hon. Friend suggests. We are doing all that we can to make available such married quarters as we have to service men who are due to be made redundant, bearing in mind the fact that we always try to organise matters so that service men who are to be made redundant spend their last six months in the United Kingdom. We are using our married quarters for that purpose.

Is the Minister aware that, compared with the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole, a very large proportion of the Scottish population is involved in the armed forces, and that the problem of demobbed service men is therefore a serious one? My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and I had a meeting with representatives of the CO Scottish Command at Glencorse barracks in my constituency, who proposed the formation of an organisation that could be funded by the Government to buy houses and take over Ministry of defence properties to provide rented accommodation for service men which they could eventually purchase. That could be a way forward. As those representatives said to us, the present demand for houses is only the tip of the iceberg.

We already make married quarters available for service men to buy at discounted prices. We are also making it possible for service men to part-purchase private properties and pay rent on the remainder. We are also reaching deals with housing associations, and are negotiating the transfer to housing associations of some 1,100 married quarters. We would keep a number of the allocations of those premises for ex-service men or service men who were about to leave. We have addressed the problem, and a lot of effort is being put into it.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that he could solve the problem at a stroke if he would do the decent thing as regards the Staffordshire regiment, and have regard to the needs of the infantry? If he would think again about reprieving the Staffordshires and the Cheshires, we would not have so many redundant service men.

I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's logic when he says that if we did not amalgamate the Staffordshire and Cheshire regiments, we would have no redundancy problems. The fact is that we have made decisions about the amalgamations and there is no reason to believe that they will not go ahead.

On 28 April the Minister gave the House an assurance that ex-personnel returning from Germany would be given accommodation for themselves and their families. Does that promise still stand, and is the Minister aware that many ex-service men will be unable to buy their own homes because they will come straight out of the armed forces on to the dole queue? What is needed is low-cost rental housing. What does the Minister propose to do to tackle that problem?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the occasion of his first contribution on defence matters from the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that we shall be hearing from him in the future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of solving the problem of housing redundant soldiers is to make fewer soldiers redundant, and that, given that the forces of reaction are gathering pace in Russia and that southern and south-eastern Europe are reverting to tribalism, this is not the time to pursue "Options for Change" with the vigour with which it has been pursued so far?

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that one reason for our having large forces was that we were opposed by the massed forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, both of which have now disintegrated. Given that the main strength opposing us had to some degree disappeared and had certainly been ameliorated, it was only right that we should look again at the level of defence expenditure that we were incurring.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with President Yeltsin regarding the dismantling of nuclear weapons in Russia and neighbouring states.

Following discussions between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin in January, we are proceeding with our plans to provide 20 nuclear weapons transport vehicles and 250 nuclear weapon containers to allow the Russian Government safely and securely to accelerate their dismantling of surplus nuclear warheads. Progress on this assistance will be reviewed during President Yeltsin's visit to the United Kingdom in November.

With Russia sliding into chaos, the need to control the 10,000 ballistic missiles on its soil is even more urgent. Given that the present rate of dismantling Russian weapons means that that will take 15 years, how many of the promised nuclear warhead containers have been constructed and how many have been delivered? Does the Secretary of State agree that unless we provide generous financial and technical assistance, we will undermine President Yeltsin in the same way that we undermined President Gorbachev? Is not a Marshall plan preferable to martial law?

All the containers are under construction and delivery will take place as soon as that is physically possible. The programme that we have already initiated is worth £30 million in that one area alone. That shows the seriousness with which we are seeking to assist President Yeltsin in the very important work that he is doing.

The Government's assistance to President Yeltsin in the dismantling of nuclear weapons must be welcomed and encouraged. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is considerable anxiety nearer home about the future of nuclear submarines which are unused and in moth balls? Can he give the House any assurance about what will happen to those nuclear plants in the near future?

We have made an assessment of the number of conventional and nuclear submarines that the country requires. Obviously, some decisions still have to be taken with regard to the decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the longer term. That is also dependent on wider decisions which the Government are addressing at the moment.

Can the Secretary of State explain in what way he thinks that he is helping Russia's nuclear de-escalation or the political position of Boris Yeltsin when Britain is escalating its nuclear capacity in strategic ballistic missiles by 250 per cent. and at the same time absolutely refusing to respond to Boris Yeltsin's offer of a nuclear moratorium? Does he not realise that that undermines the process of nuclear de-escalation inside Russia and that it strengthens the forces of reaction in that country? Does he not also realise that unless he is prepared to show sufficient support and goodwill to the reform process in Russia, the sands of time for democracy in that country will run out all the more quickly?

The hon. Gentleman shows a total inability to understand the nuclear question. He is obviously not aware that even in 10 years' time, when Russia will have completed the process of reducing its strategic nuclear warheads, it will still possess more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads and that will be six times as many as the United Kingdom will have when Trident is deployed.

My right hon. and learned Friend will know the difficulties with dismantling nuclear weapons. Is he aware of the discussions that took place between members of the Russian Government and members of the—[interruption.]

Order. Ministers cannot hear questions being put to them for all the noise in the House. Will the House come to order?

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the discussions that took place between members of the North Atlantic Assembly and representatives of the Russian Government and other eastern European Governments when it was suggested that a dismantling plant should be set up in Russia to be run and administered jointly between Russia, the United States and possibly ourselves? Will he look into that suggestion?

It is totally desirable to do what we can to assist Russia and its neighbours further in the process that they have implemented. It is encouraging that already all tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from the other Republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States into Russia. We will certainly look constructively at any proposals dealing with the dismantling of existing nuclear weapons.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the tactical air-to-surface missile.

The position remains unchanged: we are continuing to consider a range of options for Britain's future sub-strategic nuclear capability.

Given that the tactical air-to-surface missile could cost more than £3 billion, given the very welcome American moratorium on nuclear tests which will make development of the warhead difficult, and given that the Germans are unlikely to allow it on their soil, would not it be better to abandon the programme now, use some of the money to make sure that we have sufficient conventional troops to meet the Government's increasing commitments and some of the money on the diversifica-stion of the defence industry?

The TASM is only one of the options that we are considering in order to continue with Britain's sub-strategic nuclear capability. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, in terms of our national interests and our commitment to the NATO alliance, the doctrine of flexible response requires there to be a sub-strategic capability if deterrence is to achieve its full responsibility.

Bearing in mind the experience of Tornado aircraft in the Gulf, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if that aircraft is to remain viable into the new century it will need a stand-off weapon, or it will be obsolete?

There are certainly plans to consider the upgrading of Tornado. The precise question whether TASM is the answer to that requirement is being actively considered at the moment. There are a number of ways in which the United Kingdom's sub-strategic requirements can be met. It is desirable to deal with those in a full and comprehensive manner. We would expect to come to a decision some time early in the new year.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

As the Prime Minister bobbles about helplessly in a sea of chaos, has he noticed the latest damning evidence of economic decline in today's Confederation of British Industry review, yet one of last week's U-turns—just one of them—promised economic growth? Before he finally slips beneath the surface, will the Prime Minister tell us what, if anything, he will do to prevent recession from turning into slump?

In the time that he spent preparing that question, the hon. Gentleman clearly did not read all of the CBI quarterly survey. If he had done, he would have seen output expectations up on September, export optimism up on July, the domestic prices balance at an all-time low and, for the first time ever, the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually being reduced. As to improving economic circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should note what has been done. Interest rates have been cut 11 times in two years. They are the lowest interest rates in Europe, and British firms also face the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome the declaration of the London summit on the conference on Yugoslavia was in relation to the war crimes that are taking place in Yugoslavia and also the subsequent action taking place at the United Nations. Unfortunately, of course, there is no permanent machinery for trying war crimes, although the General Assembly of the United Nations has been discussing such permanent machinery. Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues in the Government to take a more constructive approach towards establishing such permanent machinery?

I am certainly content to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This was a matter that was raised at the London summit on Yugoslavia some time ago, and as a result of that, the whole matter is being examined in the United Nations.

Could the Prime Minister explain how he takes comfort from a CBI survey which predicts that jobs will be down, output will be down, orders will be down, investment will be down and confidence will be down? Will he answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)? What action will he take to stop a slump?

For the second successive Question Time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to listen to an answer already given. If he had listened more carefully he would have heard what I said about output expectations, export optimism, the domestic prices balance and the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually falling. He would also know that manufacturing output has risen in each of the first two quarters, that car production was up sharply in September, and that retail sales have been up in both the second and third quarters.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that the complacency of that answer will shock the public? Does he not realise that the British public are now sick and tired of failed economic policies as well as bogus economic promises of recovery which are never ever fulfilled?

Throughout the last three years the economic policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the same as ours, but 1 per cent. less off interest rates. Exactly the same. His commitment to the central part of our economic policy was total and frequently stated. He always wanted lower interest rates. Will he now bear it in mind that we have the lowest interest rates in the European Economic Community—lower than we have had for a long time—and that there is no economic policy whatever from the Opposition?

May I, as one who voted against the Government in the crucial Division last week on the pit closures and was opposed by a Tory candidate in the general election, from my critical position of independence congratulate the Prime Minister on the brave determination that he has shown—history will commend him for it —to put the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe? Will he take the opportunity as often as possible to spell out in simple terms to the people of this country the consequences, particularly for jobs, if Britain is left on the sidelines of Europe?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has had to say. Let me say this on the European Community and the Government's policy. I believe that we have had three historic mistakes over the last 30 years in European policy. [Interruption.] The first was when we failed to join the Community at the outset. The second was when twice other countries refused to accept Britain into the European Community. They were mistakes of great damage, to not just this country but the whole of the European Community. Today, with the possibility of enlargement through the changing policies in Europe, we have more of a chance than ever we have had before of building a European Community in the image that we in this country wish to see. It would be folly at this stage to throw that away by isolating ourselves in the Community and by ending our influence. That is the way that the sort of Community we do not wish to see—not the sort of Community that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been fighting for for some years—comes about.

Does the Prime Minister not realise that the terrible damage done to his credibility and that of his Government by his foolish manoeuvrings over the last week have undermined the case for Europe, for which there is a majority in the House, as well as delaying the chance of recovery, for which there is such desperate need in the nation?

What undermines the case for Europe is the manoeuvrings of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as well as the manoeuvrings of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that legislation will be introduced at an early date to strengthen the law against the curse of new-age travellers?

There seems to be some competition for legislation to be introduced in the House. We are examining the particular difficulties created by new-age travellers, and I hope that at the end of that examination we will be able to produce legislation to protect those who suffer from their activities.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

The Prime Minister will recall that last Wednesday members of his Government said that there would be a meaningful, genuine, statutory 90-day review of the 10 collieries earmarked for closure. Bearing in mind the fact that there is no such thing as a statutory 90-day review, and that most of those collieries are now closed, does the Prime Minister accept that the House was apparently misled?

I shall reiterate to the hon. Gentleman what I said myself on the subject of the 10 pits. I made it perfectly clear then that the 10 pits that have no economic future will go through the full statutory review procedure. I made it equally clear that the Government would co-operate with the inquiry by the Trade and Industry Select Committee and that the President of the Board of Trade will give evidence if that is required.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will never allow the EC to impose on us by the back door the social chapter that the Labour party would impose on us by the front door? Will he also confirm that he will fight for British interests and jobs in Euope, as he has always done?

I can most certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Before I went to the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty I indicated to the House that I would not come back having accepted a single currency being imposed on this House, and equally, that I would not accept the social chapter. I honoured both of those commitments and I propose to keep to them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

A sales manager of British Coal, Alan Aitken, has told customers that supplies will be supplemented by imports during the period of the pit closures. This is a disgrace. How much will be added to these imports by the agreement that the Prime Minister made with the Colombian authorities about the importation from that country of coal that is produced with the help of child labour?

The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading the wrong articles, for what he has had to say is rubbish. I made no offer to stop British Coal's anti-dumping complaint. Nor did I in any way reach the sort of agreement that the hon. Gentleman suggests with the Colombian authorities—not at any stage. Since I spend a lot of my time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, seeking an agreement on GATT, it is hardly likely that I would support dumping.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not even the French farmers would benefit from a world trade war? Will he confirm that he will continue to pursue an early conclusion of the GATT round, which will be good for developing countries, good for Britain—including companies in my constituency of Erewash—and even good for France?

I can most certainly confirm that. The reality is that everybody would lose out from a trade war, including France and everybody who lives in France. In the last few days I have been in touch with the Americans and with leaders throughout the European Community to urge an early resumption of talks between the Community and the United States, both on a GATT agreement and on ending the dispute about oil seeds. I am glad to say that the two sides are in touch again and the United States is holding off from taking trade retaliation. We must seek an agreement both to end the dispute over oil seeds and a comprehensive agreement on the Uruguay round as speedily as possible. On the substantive point of my hon. Friend's question about benefits, it would produce £120 billion worth of extra world output were we to have a successful GATT outcome.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he may be out next week on 90 clays' notice, without statutory review? Will he bear with me while I relate to him the humiliating experience, which is causing great distress, that miners at Parkside colliery suffered on Friday? They were told to report to the pit every day for 90 days but that they were forbidden to go down the mine. Will the Prime Minister condemn this unspeakable behaviour and have words about it with the chairman of British Coal?

I shall examine the case that the hon. Gentleman sets out and I shall see for myself what the facts are.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

I refer my hon. Friend— [Interruption.]—to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) should not behave in that way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that mortgage interest rates for first-time buyers are now at their lowest level for 25 years? Does he agree that that will have the effect of putting more money in people's pockets so that they can spend it on goods in the high street and thereby help our economic recovery? Does he further agree that that is very good news for home buyers throughout the country and particularly for my constituents in Basildon?

My hon. Friend has the most famous constituents in the western world and I can confirm that the very substantial reductions in mortgage rates will help them a great deal. It will also make a significant difference to the amount of money available for high street purchases, though of course the central point is that each 1 per cent. off interest rates is worth £1 billion a year to industry, and that is vital for investment, for future prosperity and for jobs.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that doubts about the future of the hugely important A1 Yamamah defence deal, which the British Government have signed with the Saudis, increase day by day and parallel the decline in the influence of his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher? Will he confirm that interest in that deal increases as it looks as though his predecessor may be making a comeback, along with that grease-palming son of hers [Interruption.]

Order. [Interruption.] We want a question from the hon. Member.

That was my question, Madam Speaker.

I refute the hon. Gentleman's distasteful remarks about my noble Friend. As for the A1 Yamamah contract, there is no doubt that the Saudi commitment to A1 Yamamah remains as strong as it has been for many years. That has been stressed to the Secretary of State for Defence and directly to me by the king.