To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent contacts his Department has had with the Indonesian Defence Ministry about arms sales.

My Department has a number of contacts with the Indonesian Defence Ministry covering a variety of issues. Those contacts are, however, a confidential matter for the two Governments.

Will the Minister confirm that the sale of British Aerospace Hawk combat aircraft to Indonesia is to go ahead? Is he aware that the Indonesian Government have illegally occupied East Timor for many years and have killed more than a third of its population? Does not he feel any shame at all that, despite the lessons of the Gulf, the British Government are continuing to sell arms to a murderous dictator?

The point of selling Hawk aircraft to Indonesia is to give jobs to people in this country. There is no doubt in my mind that a Hawk aircraft can do nothing to suppress the people of East Timor. The aircraft is not suitable for that purpose and we have guarantees from the Indonesians that the aircraft would not be used for internal suppression.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, by third-world standards, the Indonesian regime's human rights record is considerably better than many and is improving all the time? Does he share my sadness that a country which is trying to improve its human rights record, which will be the major player in that part of the world and which has shown that it wants to be friends with Britain, should be constantly denigrated in ludicrous terms such as we have just heard?

Yes, and the fact that we do business with Indonesia puts us in a position where we can influence the actions of that Government. We constantly make every effort to improve their human rights record and to improve the situation in East Timor.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the review of Scottish regiments and battalions; and if he will make a statement.

A number of representations have been received about the future of Scottish regiments and battalions, all of which have been noted.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that it is becoming abundantly apparent from those representations that the regiments and the infantry are becoming overstretched on current commitments? Given that, will the Secretary of State further acknowledge that a reassessment of the Government's position on regimental mergers in Scotland would be welcome? The Secretary of State will have seen the comments of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that he has already been engaged in such a private reassessment. Is that the case and, if so, will he take this opportunity to share that information with the rest of the House?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question refers to Army manpower as a whole. I am satisfied that at present we can meet all our obligations without undue overstretch. If I ever came to a different conclusion, it would be appropriate to review the assumptions of "Options for Change".

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he has always made it clear that Army manpower and the pressures on the Army are subject to constant review in the light of events? That is what I have been saying. Will he also confirm that the Scottish regiments are part of the fabric that makes the United Kingdom united, as is Rosyth dockyard, and that the political implications must also be taken into consideration?

I can certainly confirm that the Scottish regiments have made a fine and honourable contribution to the requirements of the United Kingdom armed forces over many years and I am sure that that will continue. As my hon. Friend knows, the future of the dockyards in the United Kingdom is presently under consideration.

What a complacent answer that was from the Secretary of State when neither he nor the Minister of State for the Armed Forces can give me a guarantee that our infantry men and women serving in Bosnia will not receive redundancy notices even while they are there and under fire. Is not it clear that we cannot possibly sustain two extra battalions in Northern Ireland, maintain an extended military force in Bosnia, assign units to an enhanced Western European Union, as the Secretary of State has promised, and contribute to the Gulf on the basis of defence plans that were drawn up before any of those commitments were known? Why does not the Secretary of State now do the honourable thing, carry out a full defence review and ensure that we have the troops necessary to meet the commitments that he and the Foreign Secretary keep making?

I would find the hon. Gentleman's indignation less synthetic if he did not represent a party whose conference called for further reductions in defence expenditure amounting to many billions of pounds. He should make up his mid about whether his party's policy accords with the views of its members.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence sales to Kuwait.

I signed a defence equipment memorandum of understanding with Kuwait on 2 December. This will enable Kuwait to purchase defence equipment directly on a Government-to-Government basis from the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, which will place and manage contracts with British equipment manufacturers. Negotiations are already taking place for the sale of GKN's Warrior and Piranha vehicles.

That news will be welcomed by the many thousands of people who are involved in the defence industry in this country, especially in the north-west. In 1990, defence sales amounted to £3 billion.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, opposed any arms sales to non-democracies. If his policy were implemented, the many British industries that will benefit from sales to countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and to middle eastern countries, would be gravely jeopardised and there would be many job losses as a consequence.

Has the Secretary of State, or any senior Ministry of Defence official, read Kenneth Timmerman's book "The Death Lobby—How the West Armed Iraq"? Given the behaviour of the Kuwaitis towards the Palestinians and many others who built up Kuwait, given the human rights situation and given the legal difficulties over the border with Iraq, would not it be better—in the face of the appalling abyss presented by the alternative —at least to enter into some kind of dialogue with Baghdad?

The hon. Gentleman is incredibly naive if he believes that dialogue with Baghdad is likely to prove fruitful. At this very moment, we are witnessing Saddam Hussein's intransigence in refusing to recognise even the authority of the United Nations Security Council.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the excellent management and work force of GKN in Shropshire, which makes the Warrior vehicle—and, more important, Perkins Engines in Shrewsbury, which produces the engine that fires that tremendous vehicle—on the expertise and workmanship that have resulted in such a saleable product?

I am happy to do so. The fact that the United Kingdom has increased its share of the world market from 17 to 20 per cent. in the past year is a tribute to the professionalism, experience and dedication of the many hundreds of thousands of people who work in our defence industries, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Have the Kuwaitis made any requests for defence equipment recently, in view of the Iraqi incursions into their territory? Do the Government believe that the United Nations did or did not approve that equipment and what does the Secretary of State think should be done if the incursions continue?

We are currently negotiating with the Kuwaitis about their possible interest in Warrior and Piranha armoured vehicles. They have expressed great interest in taking forward the contracts. As for the recent incursions into Kuwaiti territory, the United Nations Security Council has made it clear that that is unacceptable behaviour and has demanded that the Iraqis return the Silkworm missiles that were removed and cease their transgressions with regard to the frontier between Iraq and Kuwait.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, apart from selling arms to Kuwait, we should give the Kuwaitis strong advice about how to protect the defence equipment in their care? Will he and the Government ensure that representations are made—not only to the United Nations, but to the Kuwaiti authorities—about the recent scandalous stealing of equipment by the Iraqis which suggests that the Kuwaiti authorities have been extremely negligent?

The equipment in question was in the hands of United Nations personnel, who, under United Nations rules, are unable to be armed. For that reason, the Iraqis who crossed the border were able to remove the equipment. That was unacceptable and the Security Council has made its views known.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply—

Order. As it was not the hon. Gentleman's substantive question, I cannot take that as a point of order.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cutbacks in defence procurement are envisaged in Wales due to the policies inherent in "Options for Change".

The effect on Wales of any reductions in defence procurement will depend on individual companies' success in winning business and on their commercial decisions about the size and location of their manufacturing facilities.

Does the Minister agree that the west of Wales has suffered very badly recently, with the imminent closure of RAF Brawdy and Trecwn and today's news that 300 jobs will go at Pendine? Will he assure us that the Ministry will work closely with the Welsh Office to secure some new job opportunities for this highly skilled work force, who are literally without hope?

We are already working closely with the Welsh office on Trecwn and Brawdy in west Wales. We keep in touch about the other ramifications of the proposals, but we are not directly responsible for defence manufacturers in Wales. We very much regret the adjustments that were made to the work force which led to the recent job losses.

What would have happened to defence procurement in Wales and elsewhere if my right hon. Friend had listened to the advice of members of the Labour and Liberal parties?

Exactly. It is always amazing to see the resolutions that are passed at the conferences of the Opposition parties to cut defence expenditure radically, yet during defence questions Opposition Members constantly jump up and down saying that job losses are regrettable and that we should do all that we can to stimulate orders for defence equipment. As my hon. Friend said, the two do not tie together. The effect of a Labour Government, or indeed a Labour-Liberal Government, would be devastating on defence jobs across the country.

In the past few days it has become clear that the Pendine proof and experimental establishment in my constituency is under severe threat of closure under the defence review, with the loss of 300 jobs. The base has several unique facilities. It has an excellent cost-efficiency record with the lowest cost per employee of any land unit and it is the only base that makes a profit. Will the Minister assure me that decisions about the future of these establishments will be based on fair cost comparisons? What has he to say to the 300 people in Pendine who are worried about their jobs?

Whenever a decision is taken to close a defence establishment, every consideration is taken into account, including the implications for local employment. The fact remains that we are dealing with a receding and reducing defence budget and must find savings where we can.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about his Department's participation in mountain rescue work; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has received a number of representations about its participation in mountain rescue work. The open government document, "The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters", gives full details of the services that are made available by my Department for mountain rescue work. A copy is in the Library of the House.

Is the Minister aware that heavy demand over the Christmas and new year period exposed the inadequacy of the existing helicopter emergency service? For example, a fortnight ago the Killin mountain rescue team took four hours to carry an injured man off a treacherous mountainside because all the helicopters were otherwise engaged. As the decision to withdraw the helicopter emergency service from Leuchars from April was taken without any meaningful consultation with bodies such as the Scottish Sports Council and the Mountain Rescue Committee for Scotland, will the Minister act now to ensure meaningful consultations with a view to reversing the closure decision and to replacing the Wessex flight at Leuchars with Sea Kings? Otherwise, there is a real danger that lives will be lost.

I cannot comment on the particular case of a mountain rescue team taking four hours to bring someone down, but, in such circumstances, the weather is invariably so bad that mountain rescue teams are the only people who can get to the beleagured person. We should not fool ourselves—nor should the hon. Gentleman—that helicopters can operate in all weathers, because they cannot. The point of mountain rescue teams is that they can operate in virtually any weather whereas helicopters cannot always reach the necessary areas.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to commend the efforts of the mountain rescue team at RAF Leuchars which, in the past 24 hours, has been engaged in such tasks as rescuing stranded motorists and ensuring that meals on wheels are delivered to those who need them? Does he realise that such efforts create a very warm relationship between the Royal Air Force and the community and that that relationship is likely to be prejudiced by the withdrawal of search and rescue facilities from RAF Leuchars because it is well known that the quality of cover will be reduced in Fife and that lives may be put at risk? There is still time for the Government to think again and to accept that the best way in which to proceed is to replace the Wessex with the Sea King at RAF Leuchars.

To answer the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I certainly commend the mountain rescue team at Leuchars and I am glad that it will continue to carry out its job there. I have already commented on helicopters—mountain rescue teams need them to take up their advance parties, but they move independently with the bulk of their people and are not dependent on helicopters for their work. I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the recent very bad weather—about 60 cars were identified by the helicopters from Leuchars—but the Sea Kings from Lossiemouth will cover most of that area. As the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged, they are much better helicopters and can fly in much worse weather.

Does the Minister accept that his decision last October to close four RAF bases involved in search and rescue will mean an extra response time in coastal areas and in the mountains? It is not good enough for the Minister to say that we shall continue to meet the civil criteria, because his decision last October will mean that lives will be lost. Will he decide today to reverse the closures and satisfy the need for rescue teams in coastal and mountain areas because we are frightened that, if he does not, lives will be lost?

Our search and rescue capability is set up for military needs and we have found that we can reduce the military requirement and still remain well within the civil requirement. It must be true that if one doubled the number of search and rescue bases and cut response time to half an hour, the number of people who suffered as a result would probably fall, but that would involve enormous costs. The civil requirement means getting a helicopter there within an hour and we are still able to fulfil that civil requirement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representation his Department has received about Government assistance towards arms diversification.

We receive a variety of representations from time to time on the question of arms diversification. The product ranges in which companies compete is, however, a matter best left to their own commercial judgment.

Against the background of recent arms cuts involving redundancies in my area, such as those at British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., British Aerospace, GEC and Cammell Laird, and in view of the Government's statement at the NATO meeting in Rome in November 1991 that they would support eastern European countries in their diversification, does not the Minister think that it is about time that he gave such support to British companies? Does he agree with the managing director of British Aerospace's military aircraft division that the Government have no policy on spin-off technologies?

British industry has not requested Government assistance for diversification. That is perfectly straightforward because it believes, rightly, that it is in the best position to judge what is in the interests of companies and how best to diversify to meet its changing needs. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding defence cuts, £9 billion worth of orders are placed primarily with British industry for defence procurement, so it is a continuing massive source of employment.

My right hon. and learned Friend has the difficult task of trying to trim the defence budget to close to our target, which is well above what the Opposition parties would try to achieve. Has he had conversations with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about the moneys available for communities that will be affected by defence cuts? When we cut miners' jobs, the Government immediately had £1 billion available for the mining communities. It seems strange that we do not have similar plans for the communities affected by defence cuts.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, any area that experiences large unemployment can benefit from the Government's regional policy and from the special assistance available to parts of the country that fall within the relevant criteria.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of nuclear warheads remaining within the area of the old Soviet Union.

We estimate that there are some 27,000 or more nuclear warheads remaining within the area of the old Soviet Union.

There would be a big bang if they all went off together. All sane people clearly welcome the START 2 strategic arms reduction treaty. What financial and technical assistance has been provided to Russia, to Ukraine and to the other countries in eastern Europe to dismantle their nuclear weapons? Goiven START 2 and the end of the cold war, is not it time for the Government to give up the ridiculous Trident scheme? It is a criminal waste of money as there is clearly no enemy against which it will be pitched. It seems to be a case of political penis envy by the Government.

On the earlier part of the question, we are providing support to Russia and to other countries in a similar position for dismantling their surplus nuclear weapons. As for the rather absurd comments in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I remind him that not only does the former Soviet Union still have 27,000 nuclear warheads, but even after 10 years and the full implementation of the START 2 agreement, Russia will still have more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which is more than enough to create enormous devastation around the world.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that we shall monitor the decommissioning and movement of those warheads in the Soviet Union? Will he also assure the House that Britain will maintain an independent nuclear deterrent as long as it is felt expedient to do so and while there are threats around the world from who knows where—not only from the old Warsaw pact countries—which make such a deterrent vital for the safety of our people?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Measures will be taken to monitor the decommissioning or destruction of surplus nuclear weapons in Russia and in the United States. On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, the United Kingdom's approach has always been to maintain the minimum deterrent that we require. In the case of Russia and the United States, there were aspirations to parity which resulted in huge increases in strategic nuclear weapons in both countries. Those weapons are now being cut by two thirds. We very much welcome that change, but both the United States and Russia will still have many more strategic nuclear weapons than the United Kingdom contemplates.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the United Kingdom involvement in the military operation in Somalia.

The United Kingdom has deployed two Royal Air Force Hercules aircraft together with about 90 RAF personnel to assist in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia. The aircraft are currently based with United States forces in Mombasa in Kenya and since 12 December have been engaged in the transport of humanitarian relief stores to affected areas inside Somalia.

Given Britain's historic role in Somalia, does the Secretary of State agree that we should be doing far more than we are at present to assist the United Nations relief operation there? Is it not the case, however, that, due to the mismanagement of defence forces alluded to earlier, we are not capable of supporting United Nations resolutions but have to rely on the world's policeman, the United States, to do it for us? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the defence review is needed urgently?

The hon. Gentleman could not be more incorrect. With more than 3,500 British forces allocated to various United Nations operations around the world, Britain is at present contributing more personnel to the work of the United Nations than any country other than France. That shows the worthlessness of the hon. Gentleman's criticism.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many commissioned surface ships of the Royal Navy are based at Portsmouth.

There are 23 Royal Navy surface ships, including minor war vessels, base-ported at Portsmouth.

My right hon. Friend is aware of my concern to see the maximum number of ships based at Portsmouth, with the implications that that has for the provision of jobs for the fleet maintenance and repair organisation. May I thank him for receiving a delegation to discuss the organisation's future structure and seek his assurance that, before reaching final conclusions, he will take into account all representations made during the consultation period?

Yes. First, I commend my hon. Friend's tireless efforts to ensure that Portsmouth remains a substantial naval base—which it certainly will. It is a matter of great regret that we had to re-examine the whole question of our dockyard capability, and that that has led to the proposal to close the FMRO in Portsmouth. We shall look hard at all the representations made before reaching any conclusions and I am glad that we were able to extend the consultation period.

Does the Minister recall that on 24 November, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire), he promised an announcement on dockyards and bases by the end of last year? As the continuing delay results in wild speculation from all quarters, and in great uncertainty and extreme concern among the work forces at both Rosyth and Devonport, will the Minister now accept that the dual site solution is the better one, not just for jobs in Scotland and the west country but for strategic reasons? Will he now bite the bullet and tell us that an announcement will be made quickly?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that it was not possible to make an announcement by the end of the year. Further representations were made on the viability of the dockyards and it was important to examine that information carefully before reaching any conclusions. I am rather reluctant to promise the hon. Gentleman another date, but I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the surface ships belonging to the Royal Navy in Portsmouth will be joined at some date by two new amphibious assault ships which were promised during the previous Parliament? Can my right hon. Friend give us some idea when they are likely to be placed on order?

Yes, indeed. A project definition is being drawn up in connection with the replacement of both the amphibious assault ships, with the objective that we should go out to tender later this year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average interval between unaccompanied tours (a) two years ago, (b) one year ago and (c) currently.

The average interval between unaccompanied tours for the infantry in 1990–91 was 18 months. That figure rose to 32 months in 1991–92 as, among other measures, Royal Marine commandos were included, and has fallen to 17 months in 1992–93 due to the unavailability of those units undergoing amalgamation, changing roles or relocating. It is still expected, however, that the target of 24 months between unaccompanied tours will be achieved once restructuring is complete.

I appreciate that it is hoped that it will be possible to get back to 24 months at some point in the future, but when does the Minister think that that target will be achieved? Is it not likely that in the short term—over the next few years—the figure will still be low and may even drop further? Does the Minister appreciate the impact that that will have on the families of service men? If the pressure on the men and their families is sustained, we may have a vicious circle in which more men leave the service.

Yes. The period of amalgamation will be over the next two years. That has led to the present dislocation and to the emergency tour interval shrinking to the degree that it has recently. So long as there are no new long-term commitments in the next two years, we estimate that we shall be able to return to 24 months. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the effect of the amalgamation on families, and we are mindful of that.

A number of reports in The Scotsman and other newspapers have said that there may be a reprieve possibly for some Scottish regiments. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that any review of Scottish regiments will go hand in glove with the review of the Staffordshire and Cheshire regiments?

I do not think that we are talking about a review of the proposals for the amalgamation of regiments under "Options for Change". We still feel that we have the right number of regiments. We do not think that long-term commitments have changed sufficiently to want to change that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline measures he proposes to take to minimise the erosion of the skills base in the defence industry; and if he will make a statement.

It is for companies operating in the defence business to decide how to preserve and foster the skills that they judge are required to fulfil current and future defence contracts at home and overseas.

That means that the Minister is again sitting back and watching the destruction of skills in British industry—in this case, defence—which are of a high level and should be developed by the Government rather than destroyed. Last week, it was announced that 1,300 jobs were to go in Royal Ordnance factories. Why do the Government not start intervening in such industries and provide back-up and support so that there may be diversification and conversion into other industries? We have had enough of Governments being free-enterprise freaks.

I pointed out a few moments ago that British defence industries have been successful in increasing their market share from 17 per cent. of the world market to 20 per cent. That is a remarkable achievement and shows that the defence industries are capable of adapting to the new international situation.

May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend of the need to maintain our shipbuilding base and of the importance to that base of ordering the landing platform helicopter carrier? The Select Committee on Defence was recently told by an official in his Department that that requirement remained essential. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the Government's commitment to order the LPH carrier will be maintained?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in the ordering of the LPH carrier. The tenders for that particular ship have been received, and they are currently being analysed. However, that will inevitably take some time.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to deny categorically the rumour that he intends to cancel the LPH carrier project, and confirm that he will make a firm procurement decision in the autumn?

I have just told the House that we are currently considering the tenders for the order.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much food has been delivered by British troops in Bosnia since their deployment.

So far, 147 convoys have been escorted by British troops, delivering 11,775 tonnes of humanitarian aid.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the British troops are performing a valuable humanitarian role in Bosnia and does he consider that the present rules of engagement provide adequate protection for our troops in Bosnia?

I agree that the British troops are carrying out an enormously important role. The importance of their role is measured by the success of the vast number of convoys that have reached their destinations. We are equally concerned that British soldiers in Bosnia should have the means to protect themselves, and the rules of engagement have been designed to ensure that they are able to achieve that objective.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in paying a well-deserved tribute to our troops in Bosnia, one recognises that it would be intolerable if they were fired on, as has been the occasion, and were not in a position to retaliate? The British troops have a right to defend themselves in carrying out humanitarian aid and delivering relief supplies, which is undoubtedly supported by most people in Britain.

That is correct. Under the rules of engagement, they have the right to defend themselves. Indeed, in a recent incident near Tuzla, the 9th/12th Lancers returned fire on those who attacked them. They were perfectly entitled to do that and are entitled to use any of the weaponry at their disposal to protect their own lives or the lives of those for whom they are responsible.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to involve a substantial contribution of British troops in a combat role in Yugoslavia?

Yes, I can confirm that it is not our belief that it would be appropriate for ground forces to be used in a combat role. We share that view with all the other United Nations countries that are participating in Bosnia at the present time.

If the British troops in Bosnia need more equipment to defend themselves, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will ensure that they have further light artillery under similar rules of engagement so that they can perform their humanitarian role? Will he also make it clear that the reported build-up of British forces in the vicinity does not mean an inexorable drift into a bloody conflict without any military or political objectives, which could lead to an even greater loss of life than at present?

I can indeed confirm that we are not considering any extension of the role of the ground forces currently in Bosnia, who are there to carry out a humanitarian role. Of course we shall continue to monitor whether the equipment available to them to defend themselves is sufficient to meet their requirements. If we were to conclude that it was necessary to enhance the equipment available for their protection, we would not hesitate to supply it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the role of British armed forces personnel in the provision of humanitarian aid in Bosnia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current situation of the British forces serving with the United Nations in Bosnia.

During my own recent visit to the United Nations protection force I was able to see at first hand some of the work that British forces there are doing. By escorting convoys, and creating by their presence a secure atmosphere in which aid agencies can operate, our forces have ensured that areas that have not received aid for many months have now been reached with vital supplies.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who criticise the fact that it is always British and American armed forces who carry out the kind of roles being carried out: in Bosnia and Somalia should reflect that that is to the shame of the countries that are doing nothing rather than a valid criticism of the policy of the United Kingdom Government?

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct to emphasise that the United Kingdom can hold its head high as it is making such a crucial contribution in ensuring that food, medical aid and shelter reach the many tens of thousands of people who would be starving during the very severe winter months but for the magnificent contribution of our British forces in Bosnia.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind himself of the fact that our forces are operating in very difficult winter conditions? Will he assure us that they will be properly equipped to look after themselves and ensure that their capabilities are maintained?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and tell him that we are considering whether any further enhancement might be required to meet that objective with even more certainty in the weeks and months to come.

I welcome the understanding that the forces will be properly equipped to protect themselves against winter conditions, but does the Secretary of State not accept that while a Portakabin type might protect against winter conditions, the type of hardened shelter that has been developed in Northern Ireland would protect them better from the shelling that they are enduring now?

I am very conscious of the fact that the situation has deteriorated significantly in the past week or so. For the first time, our forces have been subjected to what appears to have been a deliberate artillery attack from what appear to have been Serbian positions. We are urgently considering the proper response to ensure the fullest protection for our forces in Bosnia at the present time.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is general acceptance by all countries with troops in Bosnia that the British troops are among the most efficient there? That being so, is it not inequitable that our troops receive less pay there than they would in Germany or Northern Ireland while the soldiers of other countries receive enhanced pay?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman's comment is based on a misunderstanding. The allowance that our forces receive in, for example, Germany is to enable them to purchase local goods—which are, of course, quite expensive. In Bosnia, all their requirements are entirely met by the Army. Where their families remain in Germany, they continue to receive allowances to which they were previously entitled.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that when our troops were first deployed in Bosnia for humanitarian purposes we reserved the right to withdraw them should they come under fire? Does he accept that the situation is deteriorating and that there is a severe risk that the United Nations forces might end up being the fourth side in a civil war? Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep anxiously open the option of withdrawing our forces and perhaps regrouping elsewhere in the area if that is deemed a safer way of maintaining peace?

I can understand my hon. Friend's concern. We judge these matters against two criteria: first, whether they can fulfil the humanitarian role for which they were sent to Bosnia; secondly, whether the level of risk that they face in the war zone is acceptable. We shall continue to apply those criteria.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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.

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Many hundreds of skilled workers in my constituency are, unfortunately, out of work at the present time. Quite frankly, they are suffering from the Government's failure to support employers. Can we look forward in 1993 to no more false dawns but to positive action on jobs so that my constituents and their families can regain some dignity?

We all wish to see recovery—there is no difference between any hon. Members on that subject. We shall get lasting recovery only if we have the right basics. These include low inflation, modest interest rates and the right exchange rate. They are now all in place.

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the National Union of Teachers is to organise a boycott of tests for 14–year-olds? If those reports are correct, will he condemn such action as disgraceful and highly damaging,

I am certainly prepared to condemn any such call and any such action. I suspect that teachers will be far too sensible to take any such action. Those tests are vital. They are good for children, parents want to see them, teachers need to know how well the children are performing, and parents have a right to know how well their children are performing. Those tests will provide that information.

Since the wrecking of the Braer is a major environmental disaster and one which could happen again before the inquiries that were announced yesterday have been completed, will the Prime Minister take interim action now to protect our coastlines? Will he convene an urgent meeting with the oil companies to obtain an assurance from them that only the safest routes will be used for the transport of oil while the inquiries are going on? Will he also agree to proposals that have been made to make adequate radar facilities available in sensitive areas so that the continuing traffic in oil can be monitored while the inquiries proceed?

I will certainly invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to examine those matters. They may have many ramifications and I think that I should have them examined before I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a concrete answer.

I at least welcome the Prime Minister's decision to refer this to his right hon. and learned Friend, but I ask him to engage himself in this important matter. Will he bear in mind that it is frequently the case in matters of aviation that interim action, such as the grounding of aircraft, may be taken while inquiries are being undertaken? Will he bear in mind the acute anxiety that exists in areas all round the coast at what has happened in the Shetlands? May I invite him to look into it personally and to make an early report to the House?

That may well be. As I indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a moment ago, it is prudent to examine a matter carefully before making a commitment. [Interruption.] Were I to make a commitment without doing so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be right to be critical. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend will examine it carefully; he will report to me and we shall report to the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that private sector skills have greatly benefited industries such as Rover cars, gas, electricity and British Telecom, following policies which the Opposition have opposed at every turn? Will he confirm to the House today that soon these same private sector skills will be made available to British Rail?

I can certainly offer that assurance, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will give further details later this afternoon.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Swan Hunter shipbuilding on the Tyne is now on the verge of complete closure, with the loss of 2,000 jobs and disaster for the north-east? Can he therefore confirm that the new helicopter carrier is still in the programme to be built on the Tyne?

We have received tenders and we are considering them at the present time.

If my right hon. Friend has time to think about it today, will he agree that legitimate attempts to protect the privacy of prominent and other citizens alike should not be used as an excuse to launch a fundamental attack on the freedom of the press, which is so vital to a thriving democracy?

The Government have now received the report of Sir David Calcutt and we shall publish it shortly. The whole House will then have an opportunity to make up its mind on the contents of the report.

In view of the grave news of the breakdown of the Geneva talks as a result of Bosnian Serb intransigence, will the Prime Minister now confirm that the British Government are prepared to act with others to protect against the future elimination of the Muslim homeland, to maintain the isolation of the Bosnian Serbs and to increase the pressure, political and military, to force the Bosnian Serbs to return to the peace table?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's regret at the breakdown of the discussions in Geneva. I believe that Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen have done an outstanding job. They have put forward a fair plan. It is a matter of great regret that the Bosnian Serbs are unpersuaded and unprepared to accept it. Sooner or later there must be a negotiated settlement; the only question is whether it comes now or following further repression, further suffering and further difficulties. The international community will wish to apply further pressure if the Bosnian Serbs continue to reject this settlement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me on the important role that small and medium-sized businesses will have to play in economic recovery? Will he undertake to sweep away the unnecessary layers of red tape and bureaucracy which so tie down some of our small businesses?

I have indicated that it is certainly the Government's intention to do so. We have already made good progress since the election, but I now want us to go both further and faster. I have therefore asked every Department in Whitehall to prepare plans for action on deregulation. I shall be meeting every Secretary of State in early February, with their permanent secretaries, and I hope that we can then draw up a detailed plan for deregulation of burdens on business.

To ask the Prime Minister, when he next expects to meet representatives of London's homeless.

I have no plans to do so, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing meets representatives regularly.

Is it not about time the Prime Minister met representatives of London's homeless to learn that 40,000 families—about 100,000 people—spent Christmas in temporary accommodation, a 10 per cent. increase on a year ago, that there are 50,000 single homeless in London and more than 2,000 sleeping on the streets, a 10 per cent. increase on a year ago and a fivefold increase on five years ago? Is it not about time money was provided to local authorities to buy and build so that families can grow up in decent accommodation rather than suffering the indignity of bed and breakfast accommodation, and public resources were put where they are needed to provide decent homes for the people of this city rather than building empty office blocks for speculative gain?

The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention the number of empty houses either in his own local authority's stock or in that of many local authorities. Liverpool, Hackney, Burnley, Manchester, Salford and North Tyneside all have a very bad record on empty properties.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that the British people expect from the Conservative Government is tough action on law and order [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order.

Does the Prime Minister share my concern about the increasing problem of persistent young offenders carrying out crimes such as car crime, burglaries and joy riding? Will he confirm that the Government will take tough action to combat those problems—unlike the Labour party, which is soft on crime?

I will take scoffing from the Labour party on law and order when they begin to support the prevention of terrorism Acts—[Interruption.]

The House must come to order to hear what the Prime Minister has to say—[Interruption.] All parts of the House, for that matter.

On the assumption that Members of the House did not hear what I said a moment ago, I shall repeat it for their benefit. I will take words from the Opposition on law and order when they stop opposing the prevention of terrorism Acts.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the biggest problem facing this country at present is the scourge of mass unemployment? Is he aware that it is costing £9,000 for the taxpayer to finance somebody out of work? That is a total cost of £30 billion out of a public sector borrowing requirement of £37 billion. If the Prime Minister tackled that problem, he would be tackling the economy's problems as well. He has the fate of 100,000 people in his hands—30,000 of them miners—in the course of the next few weeks. He could resolve the problem easily. If he will give a subsidy of only half that which is given to nuclear power he will be able to save all 31 pits and 100,000 jobs, export coal to every continent in the world and resolve some of the balance of payments problems as well. Will the Prime Minister stop dithering and do it?

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the scourge of unemployment. The difference between him and me would be the right method with which to deal with it and to ensure that there are long-term jobs subsequently available. I note what he says about the problem of the pits, but I have no intention of anticipating the coal review, which will be brought before the House as speedily as possible. While the hon. Gentleman continues to support policies such as a payroll tax on jobs, the social chapter, and a national minimum wage, he is not in the best position to lecture us about job losses.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the wider implications of the rundown or closure of Devonport dockyards? Does he appreciate that the continuing uncertainty is causing unhappiness not just in the city of Plymouth but throughout the west country? I appreciate that he cannot announce a decision today, but will he at least assure the people of Devon and Cornwall that when the time comes for that decision to be made he will have their concerns very much in the forefront of his mind?

I appreciate the great concern in the minds of the people of Devon—and, indeed, of those of near Rosyth—concerning the decisions that need to be taken about the dockyards. I know that that uncertainty is worrying people. The Secretary of State for Defence will announce our proposals as soon as he can. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no undue delay.