To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the right to a British passport of members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for defence and I have received a number of representations about the allocation of passports to locally entered uniformed personnel serving in the military garrison in Hong Kong.

Bearing in mind that we are dealing with members of a unit of the British Army, many of whom have served up to 22 years, during which time they have paid British taxes, and bearing in mind that we are talking about a maximum of 1,300 individuals, most of whom would not want to come here in any case, should we not make an exception in their case?

As my hon. Friend will know, there is a residual number of passports, of which we hope to secure a high proportion for many of these people, who I agree have given dedicated service to the Crown. I very much accept what my hon. Friend says and we should like to do everything that we can, within the allocation, to get as many of the passports as we can for those locally entered personnel.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread support throughout the House for the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander)? Those personnel have loyally served the country and feel threatened by the changes in Hong Kong in 1997. They are in a very different position from other people such as prison officers or the police. I ask the Minister seriously to consider their request.

I very much accept what the hon. Gentleman says. They are indeed in a different position, and one of the things that make their position different from that of the police, prison officers, and so on is that their jobs will not continue after 1997. As I have already said, we are doing our best to secure as many passports as we can from the remaining tranche available. I take the point that many of those people do not want to come to this country, but they want the guarantee so that their futures will be secure. We hope that their fears of persecution when the Chinese take over in Hong Kong are unfounded, and we have every reason to believe that they will be very fairly treated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the regulations concerning the payment of local overseas allowance for British troops serving in the former Yugoslavia.

Local overseas allowance is a tax-free addition to pay designed to compensate service personnel for the extra cost of serving in countries where day-to-day living expenses are higher than in the United Kingdom. This does not apply to British troops in former Yugoslavia who, in any event, do not pay local food and accommodation charges. Troops deployed there from bases in Germany nevertheless continue to receive a proportion of their local overseas allowance—70 per cent. for married personnel and 40 per cent. for single personnel—in recognition of continuing financial commitments in Germany.

Does the Minister accept that, forgetting his lawyer's logic, the people of this country find it quite extraordinary that soldiers going into what is effectively a war zone in Yugoslavia are taking a pay cut and equally astonishing that those troops under fire are facing redundancy notices? When will he do something about that?

The hon. Gentleman really has not examined the matter properly. He should know perfectly well that British troops serving in Yugoslavia come from Germany and the United Kingdom. Those who come directly from the United Kingdom would not have been receiving an overseas allowance. Those who come from Germany receive an allowance to pay for the higher costs of living in Germany. It would be absurd to pay an allowance that is paid for one purpose in a territory where that purpose simply is not met; the hon. Gentleman should realise that before putting his rather foolish proposition.

I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's reply because it is important that he remains flexible on that issue. It is undoubtedly very important to those serving in war zones, or however we may describe them, that their families are not at a financial disadvantage. Those who have been stationed in Germany, in particular, and whose wives and families remain there, still have serious financial commitments to meet. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the flexibility of which he has assured us will therefore be greatly welcomed by the wives and families who remain in Germany?

Yes, it is a very flexible policy. If the Opposition had listened to my original answer they would realise that. Under current policy, personnel who have come from Germany and who continue to have commitments there will be paid 70 per cent. of the allowance if they are married and 40 per cent. if they are single. It would be absurd to pay them the full allowance, which is partly to cover the cost of food and accommodation, when those serving in Yugoslavia receive food and accommodation completely free.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of NATO in a future European security policy.

NATO will remain the principal mechanism for the promotion of collective security and stability throughout the Atlantic area and the forum for agreement on policies bearing on the security and defence commitments of its members.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, indefinite though it is. Does he agree that the success of NATO over 40 years was based on the imperative of defence and that, although the alliance had political structures, they were very much secondary and subordinate to that imperative? As a consequence, NATO was often much bigger and more effective than the sum of its parts. In the absence of that imperative, and with political differences and difficulties coming to the fore, might there not be a serious possibility that NATO could be fatally weakened and undermined?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that, with the ending of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the circumstances in Europe for which NATO was originally designed have changed radically. We cannot assume, however, that all risk has disappeared. Clearly, Russia remains a nuclear super-power and while—at the moment—it has a friendly Government seeking to introduce democracy and western values, we cannot assume that to be a policy which will be achieved with great success in the foreseeable future. In addition, NATO must find ways of making available its valuable and expensive assets in order to contribute to other problems of security, as it is currently doing in, for example, former Yugoslavia.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend any plans for extending operational sea training facilities to other NATO navies? If so, will he produce some nice glossy brochures to sell the services of Portland rather than promoting the virtues of spending £600 million on new office blocks for Ministry of Defence civil servants?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's natural concern about that issue. As he will be aware, over the years we have already provided opportunities for sea training for other NATO countries. The United Kingdom is seen as a valued source of such training, and I am sure that it will continue to be so wherever sea training takes place.

Will the Secretary of State confirm the importance of Britain's amphibious programme to future European security. In particular, will he repeat in the House what he said on "Newsnight" last week—that the Navy's new helicopter carrier is not to be cancelled to pay for the Army changes that he announced last week?

Amphibiosity continues to be a useful asset for the armed forces and, although it has not been used in recent years, it is, nevertheless, an important capability.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the changes in NATO have meant that there is an even bigger role for the amphibious forces? Important though the landing platform helicopter ship is, so are the replacements for the landing ships for the Royal Marines, who are probably the most efficient and cost-effective armed forces in the world. Can we ensure that they have the means with which to get to the places where they are required to work?

My hon. Friend is certainly entitled to point out that the present reliance on the landing platform docks to develop an amphibious capability continues to be important. We do not have an LPH at present, and we have not had one for several years. It is a question whether we should enhance the amphibious capability by proceeding with that order. My hon. Friend is right to draw that point to the attention of the House.

Here we are, five years and more after the end of the cold war, and today the Select Committee on Defence has illustrated once again what the Opposition have said for the past two years: the Government have no strategy on defence, no policy on security and no idea where they are going. How on earth can the Secretary of State pretend to fashion European defence policy when he has not a clue how to fashion British defence policy? Would he not do better to save himself another U-turn and a lot of time and trouble by telling the House today that he will instigate a full defence review? Alternatively, does he intend to go on as he has over the regiments and the dockyards, staggering from pillar to post and doing a disservice to himself as well as to the country and to the armed forces?

The hon. Gentleman could not even present his point with a straight face, which is not surprising as he represents a party which has done a complete somersault on nuclear disarmament and whose party conference—

We are in a nuclear-free zone here.

I entirely concede that there are at least three Labour Members to whom my criticism does not apply. The Labour party conference continues to call for massive 25 per cent. reductions in the defence budget, so the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who speaks from the Front Bench, should start to convert his own party supporters before he tries to instruct the Conservative party on a proper defence policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contribution to the economy of defence exports.

Britain's defence exports for 1992 were £4.5 billion, representing 20 per cent. of the world market.

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his tremendous work in securing the important Tornado order and for safeguarding thousands of jobs in this country? Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating HE, a company in my constituency of Chelmsford, on its important work in the building of Tornado?

First, I am glad to confirm that HE, the admirable high-technology company in my hon. Friend's constituency, is likely to benefit from the large Tornado order. I make the point that all round the country approximately 150 British subcontracting firms will benefit from the order, in addition to British Aerospace, the main contractor. As my hon. Friend has said, all those companies have good reason to be extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his superb negotiating skills which won the order.

Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Defence has no current plans to sell any of the four Upholder class submarines which are due to enter service in the Navy in the near future? Will he take this opportunity to tell the House that those four submarines have an important role to play in the Navy's submarine service?

I can certainly confirm that there are no current plans for the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The question concerns defence exports generally. Whatever any one product may be, our disposals branch plays a useful role in selling unwanted defence equipment to overseas buyers.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the role that he played in obtaining the very valuable aircraft and tank export orders. May I draw his attention to the potential for naval exports and particularly, in this unstable world, the need of foreign navies for amphibious ships? If we proceed with the landing platform helicopter order in this country, which was recently described by the Commander-in-Chief Fleet as critical to the Navy's capabilities, it could lead to export orders which would help to maintain our defence and industrial base.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is a formidable champion of the interests of his constituency, where there is a great shipyard. He has been most helpful in pressing us to make efforts to achieve export orders for naval vessels, and there have been many successes in recent months. I certainly hope that, with my hon. Friend's help, we will continue to win orders in this important matter.

Instead of promoting the sale of weapons of mass destruction to undemocratic countries overseas, would not the Prime Minister have spent his time more successfully in taking a leaf out of the book of the Taiwanese Government and investing in our civil aerospace industry?

The Prime Minister, on his recent trip, batted for Britain splendidly on civil and military matters and won orders for both. I am amazed by the hon. Lady's attitude, which conflicts with that of the many hon. Members who keep writing to me on behalf of their constituents asking us to fight for export orders. The hon. Lady reflects the confusion which was sown so excitably by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 24 November, when he said that we should not be selling defence equipment to anyone other than non-military dictatorships. We are all waiting for clarification as to which regimes have the Labour party's seal of approval. Should we send back the orders in the meantime?

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total annual cost of maintaining British forces in Germany; and what will be the likely number stationed there in 1994.

The defence budget provision for 1992–93 for the British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany was £1,740 million. There will be around 36,000 troops stationed in Germany in 1994.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically full and complete reply. Does he agree, however, that there would be less strain on the Exchequer if British troops were stationed in the United Kingdom rather than in Germany, particularly as there is no longer any threat from the Warsaw pact? Would my right hon. Friend care to say why it might be thought that 23,000 troops in Germany is the right figure to maintain an American presence in NATO in Germany?

My hon. Friend says that there will be less strain on the Exchequer. In fact, there would be a greater strain on the Exchequer because if we brought those troops back we should have to spend a lot of money on barracks and so forth to relocate them in this country. It would help the balance of payments, but that would be very much outweighed by other costs.

Will the Minister give a clear assurance that there is no prospect of the local overseas allowance paid to British forces in Germany being cut or removed altogether?

No, we continue to review the local overseas allowance which is paid to forces all around the world and therefore has to take into account the different costs of living in different parts of the world. We intend to continue that. The local overseas allowance is regularly updated as well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of fully operational nuclear warheads available to each country of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

We estimate that the former Soviet Union had some 27,000 or more nuclear warheads. All the tactical warheads are now in Russia. Of the strategic warheads, we believe that there are some 7,500 in Russia, 1,500 in Ukraine, 1,200 in Kazakhstan, and 80 in Belarus. I am sure that the House will join me in welcoming the ratification by Belarus on 4 February of the START 1 treaty and her commitment to accede to the non-proliferation treaty.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Ukraine is selling nuclear weapons to whoever will buy them? Is it not time that we had a fifth Trident submarine? Will he assure me that he will not listen to the CND crackpots opposite? They do not care about jobs and they do not care about defence. All that they care about is the lack of defence of this country. Will he answer a direct question? Will they knock £6 billion off their defence budget? Let us have a simple answer: yes or no.

I think that I can happily endorse my hon. Friend's observations. The Labour party campaigned against the Trident programme and sought to denude Britain of its nuclear deterrent, and at its party conference it continues to call for massive reductions in our defence forces. That policy is matched only by the inconsistency of Labour Front-Bench Members simultaneously calling for more soldiers, more defence spending and more regiments. The Labour party's policy has only to be described to be seen as totally unworthy of any support from any reasonable source.

The Secretary of State will know that the United Kingdom has offered to supply 250 containers and 20 transporters to the countries of the CIS to help them destroy their nuclear weapons, but is it not the case that the transporters have not yet begun to be delivered and will not be there until the end of 1994? Is it not also the case that the design of the transporters is chronically unreliable? If they break down on British motorways, are they not likely to break down on the pot-holed roads of the Soviet Union as well?

I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Until they are manufactured, it is difficult to deliver them, and they are in the process of being manufactured at present. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the design will be of a sort that will be suitable for the purpose for which they are being sent.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that the President of the Ukraine is in the United Kingdom this week and therefore may well have heard the question of my hon. Friend for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)? Will he also note that the problem of the continuing possession of nuclear weapons by the CIS is a matter of concern and underlines the importance of maintaining NATO and safeguards and encouraging the Americans to maintain their presence within NATO at the current level rather than switching to the rotation concept which has quite a lot of support among the Democrats?

I am sure that the President of the Ukraine does not need to be in the Chamber to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). We do not have any evidence which shows that the Ukraine is selling nuclear weapons. Indeed, it does not have physical possession of the weapons on its territory: they continue to be in the control of the officers of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Does the Secretary of State realise that almost the whole world, with the exception of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), approves of the START 1 and 2 treaties, which will bring about a reduction of nuclear warheads throughout the world, including the CIS? Can he give the House an assurance that when he deploys Trident Britain will not buck the trend and increase the number of nuclear warheads on its submarines from 192 to 512?

Unlike both the former Soviet Union and the United States, our determination of the size of our nuclear deterrent has never been based on principles of either parity or superiority. We have always sought to identify the minimum size of deterrent which is capable of ensuring the ultimate protection of these islands. We shall continue to apply that principle. It is the only sound principle with regard to the defence of the United Kingdom.

While I cannot match the elegance or eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), he elicited from the Minister some frightening figures about the nuclear presence and power of those countries that comprised the Soviet Union at one stage. Would not it make sense for the Minister to consider that Britain's submarine capacity would be better served if a warship yard of proven ability such as Cammell Laird were given at least some breathing space to see whether it can provide the defence that the Minister obviously considers desirable?

We attach continuing importance to ensuring that our shipyards are able to meet the needs of the Royal Navy. Those needs change as the years go by, but it is crucial not only that our naval requirements should be met within the United Kingdom, but that the principle of competition should apply wherever possible to ensure that the cost to the taxpayer is kept to an absolute minimum.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.

The WE177 is expected to remain in service well into the first decade of the next century. We are studying a range of possible options for its eventual replacement; I will make an announcement at the appropriate time.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the WEI77 replacement will cost £3 billion? Will he accept the advice of the former hon. Member for Beckenham, who, on 22 November 1991, asked the Government to halt the replacement of that most expensive and unnecessary system?

I certainly cannot confirm the figure that the hon. Gentleman used, which I do not recognise. We are looking at a series of possible replacements for the WE177 which could either be an alternative free-fall bomb or another means of achieving a sub-strategic capability. It would be unwise to assume that there is no need for any intervening level of capability between conventional forces and the full power of our strategic Trident system. The whole basis of NATO defence policy, including our policy, has been to allow for the possibility of a graduated response in times of crisis. The hon. Gentleman should also take account of that.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in an era of potential nuclear proliferation around the globe, it remains important for the United Kingdom, if it is to be a significant nuclear power in the future, to deploy a sub-strategic deterrent that is both credible and visible? In that connection, is not it sensible to have an air-launched system such as the one that the French and the Americans will be deploying?

It is certainly important to ensure that any system that we might choose is credible and reliable. An air-launched system is one option that has to be considered seriously. There are other possibilities and it would be wrong to foreclose any of the options until the work has been done. As I mentioned to the House a few moments ago, our current sub-strategic system will be available until well into the first decade of the next century. Therefore, we can study these matters with the care and detail that they obviously deserve.

Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity today to exclude the tactical air-to-surface missile as one of those alternatives, because the need for it was conceived when NATO's nuclear doctrine was one of flexible response? Now that NATO's nuclear doctrine is that those weapons are weapons of last resort, what possible justification is there for a tactical air-to-surface missile, not least when a sub-strategic alternative could be achieved by the use of a single missile and single warhead on the Trident D5 system?

It would be wrong at this stage to exclude any of the options until the work has been done. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct that the strategic situation has changed, as NATO continues to believe that flexible response is an important ingredient and that it is necessary to ensure the sub-strategic system in addition to strategic nuclear weapons, these matters must be considered with all the care that the issue clearly requires.

Once my right hon. and learned Friend has had time, as I am sure he will, to read, mark, learn, inwardly digest and, I hope, act upon today's report from the Select Committee on Defence, will he note that the most spine-chilling piece of evidence was that nuclear material and weapons are leaching out of Russia into European, Arab and Muslim countries and that 163 countries have now obtained them? Will he state definitely to the House that we will ensure that our capabilities to deal with such weapons are sufficient to deter their use by countries that have unstable Governments and are within reach of Europe?

The proliferation of nuclear weapons must be a matter of serious concern. At a time when the Soviet Union—the world's second-largest nuclear superpower—is disintegrating, it is an important priority to ensure that the transition of the Soviet Union into its successor states is accompanied by the removal of all nuclear weapons from countries other than Russia and to assist Russia in the dismantling and destruction of surplus nuclear weapons. We must do so partly to prevent the disposal of weapons or their components to other countries.

Yesterday the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that we needed to review the welfare state because public expenditure was out of control. Today we have a damning indictment of the Government by the Select Committee on Defence, which says that we must spend more money on the Army. The answer must be for the Government to abandon their plans for a new nuclear bomb. We would save £3 billion if we scrapped the tactical air-to-surface missile. The Labour party would scrap TASM tomorrow. It is an embarrassment internationally and it has no military capability for the future. I predict that the Conservative Government will scrap TASM. Why does not the Secretary of State tell the House now that he will cancel it?

The hon. Gentleman says that a Labour Government would scrap TASM tomorrow. It is worth remembering that the same Labour Government would have scrapped Trident yesterday. That speaks for itself on the inadequacy on Labour thought on those crucial issues.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend concede that we never know from where an attack may come? [Interruption.] Yes, even from the Opposition Benches. Does he agree that if we have a nuclear deterrent it must be updated? In the CIS nations inflation is running at 1,000 per cent. People cannot afford coffins to bury their dead. Hospitals cannot afford replacement needles. That group of nations has all the ingredients for another revolution. We must forget what is happening in the rest of the world and make sure that we can defend our nation.

My hon. Friend is right to remind us of those considerations. It is worth remembering that in 10 years' time, even if it has fully met all its obligations under the START and successor treaties, Russia will still have more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads and will still be the world's second-largest nuclear super-power.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in 1993 about compensation for nuclear test veterans.

A small number of representations have been received so far this year.

Is the Minister aware that thousands of former British troops such as my constituent, Mr. Anderson, who was exposed to radioactive fall-out in the clean-up of Christmas island, still await justice and compensation from our Government, whereas their counterparts in the United States and Canada have received just compensation from their Governments? When will the report that the Prime Minister mentioned on 14 January on compensation for those Army veterans be published? Will he confirm that the cases of constituents such as Mr. Anderson will be included in that report?

Most of the people who witnessed the explosions that took place as part of the atomic experiments were not exposed to any radiation whatever. A minority of those who were close to the explosions were exposed, but the radiation did not reach dangerous levels. The current problem, which has been revealed by a previous report of the National Radiological Protection Board, is that people who get older are more likely to contract cancer. It is reckoned that possibly a third of people may contract cancer at some time during their life. The latest NRPB report said that there was no link between those who had attended atomic tests and cancer. We are waiting for the next report to appear which I am told should be some time later this year.

With respect to my hon. Friend, is he aware that that reply might be misinterpreted as appalling complacency on the part of the Government? Does he further agree that the claimants for compensation who witnessed those tests in the Pacific are dying and that there should be no further delay in settling their very legitimate claims?

My hon. Friend describes it as complacency, but the fact is that we have ways of checking doses of radiation and if people have not received any radiation, there is nothing that I can do to alter it. The fact remains that there was no evidence of radiation spreading very widely from the areas of those explosions. As I have already explained to the House, people get cancer as they get older—and that happens widely across the whole population, whether they have witnessed nuclear tests or not.

Does not the case of the nuclear test veterans demonstrate two things: first, the callousness of the Government's attitude to the victims and, secondly, the grave dangers of the deployment and use of nuclear weapons? Why do not the Government acknowledge that a contribution to peace would be for the Government to get rid of nuclear weapons and to honour their obligations, which they have consistently breached, under the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Will the Minister confirm that 150 nations are pledged not to manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons? Why do not the Government support them?

The one thing on which I will congratulate the hon. Gentleman is consistency. During times when his party has changed its policy radically on the question of nuclear weapons, he always advocates that we should get rid of them. He knows, however, that the policy of this Government is and will continue to be to keep nuclear weapons. We believe that they do not put people's lives at risk in experimentation or anywhere else. They have saved many lives in terms of the deterrent provided.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what number of British armed forces personnel are currently deployed onshore and offshore in support of United Nations actions in the former Yugoslavia.

The number of British armed forces personnel currently deployed, onshore and offshore, in direct support of United Nations operations in the former Yugoslavia is about 3,000. Additionally, there are some 320 personnel deployed for possible reinforcement or evacuation action on HMS Ark Royal and other British vessels in the area.

Is not it transparent that the extra turn of the screw in reducing Army numbers, now reversed, was always Treasury-driven and not a military judgment; that the idea that substantial savings could be made while continuing to meet our likely commitments—the so-called peace dividend—was in part and in practice a delusion; and that the cancellation of the helicopter landing platform, the intended centrepiece of our amphibious capability, would be a contradiction of the rapid reaction role on which our new policy is to be based?

We have always said that it would be necessary to review requirements in the light of the changing international situation, but I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the main thrust behind "Options for Change" remains unchallenged because the United Kingdom, with the United States, France, Russia, and every other country of NATO and the former Warsaw pact, must make substantial reductions in the overall size of its armed forces. The cold war is over. As the cold war was the single most important reason for the level of defence expenditure that we have had over the past 40 years, it would be unrealistic to believe that it should continue regardless of the changes that have occurred. That is a factor which I believe will commend itself to the House.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Ark Royal is so short of facilities and so overcrowded that members of our armed forces have to sleep under their planes and by their equipment? Does not this show that we are overstretched in the Navy as well as in the Army and does not it also call into question the need for a helicopter landing ship? Will he tell the House this afternoon that he intends to proceed with that order?

As for HMS Ark Royal, the hon. Gentleman is being foolish. Ark Royal is in the Adriatic for a specific and limited purpose. It is perfectly able to provide proper, indeed excellent, accommodation for its normal crew, but on a temporary basis it is carrying additional personnel. The suggestion that that is evidence of overall underprovision is very silly.

To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence how many civilian and military jobs have been transferred from Yorkshire and the north of England to other locations, resulting from the review of defence establishments.

To date, no posts have yet been transferred out of Yorkshire and the north of England as a result of "Britain's Defence for the 90s". A number of proposals have been made to date, however, that will enable my Department to make savings by rationalising posts and closing establishments.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I recognise the need for rationalisation, but will he place serious emphasis on the retention of jobs in Yorkshire and the north? Does he recognise the concern of my constituents, whose civilian jobs in the RAF Support Management Group are to be transferred to Cambridgeshire under his review? Will he reconsider that decision, in the light of the decision not to locate the Junior Leaders Regiment at the Army apprentices college—an excellent set of buildings which would be ideal to house the support group?

A substantial number of defence jobs is being maintained in Yorkshire, because Catterick remains a major garrison for our troops. As for my hon. Friend's proposal that the RAF support group should be moved to the site of the Army apprentices college, we are currently considering that and I shall contact him about it; but I remind him that the period of consultation on the proposal to close the college is still in operation.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on launching a fundamental review of all Government spending, just as Conservative-controlled Basildon is currently doing? Does he agree that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure the best possible value for every pound of taxpayers' money that is spent?

As my hon. Friend so often reminds the House, where Basildon leads others tend to follow.

Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made during the election campaign only 10 months ago? He said that the Government had no plans and no need to extend the scope of value added tax. Does he stand by those words?

The hon. Lady knows that we are near to the Budget. She must wait.

The Prime Minister made just that promise to the British people when he needed their votes. Why will not he make it now?

The hon. Lady knows that we are close to the Budget. She must wait.

At the time of the election, the Prime Minister and all his colleagues promised no change in VAT, no other new taxes or charges and no cuts in the public spending plans that they had put before the British people. Is not it clear from the Prime Minister's refusal to answer a simple question that all his promises had a sell-by date of 9 April?

It is not remotely clear from that. What is clear is that we are close to the Budget and the hon. Lady will have to wait for the Budget to find out what it contains.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the article by Robert Fisk in yesterday's edition of The Independent which describes systematic rape in Bosnia? Has not the time come for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal, so that those responsbile for the perpetration of such foul crimes can be brought to justice? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that, under the authority of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, such a tribunal is established as quickly as possible?

I have not seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers, hut, as he will know, we have been considering that matter in concert with the United Nations for some time.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that unemployment in my constituency, in the once-prosperous city of Nottingham, is now higher than in any Scottish or Welsh constituency, having risen by 44 per cent. between 1990 and 1992? With three out of 10 males now unemployed, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect unemployment to start to fall?

I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's concern about unemployment, but I would respect it more if he did not support policies that would deliberately put people out of work—[Interruption.]—rather than back into work. He and his party have consistently argued for a national minimum wage and even the Fabian Society has recognised that

"an inescapable part of a"

"policy is increased unemployment."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government support the Owen-Vance peace plan and that they will continue to keep up their pressure on the warring parties to comply with that plan? In the meantime, will he confirm British support for the humanitarian aid now going to Bosnia?

Yes. I confirm both points. The Government's policy is fully to support the Owen-Vance peace plan, which was developed out of the conference that I chaired in London last August. We also wish to maintain the conditions in which our forces can support the United Nations humanitarian effort, without which many thousands of people alive today would otherwise have been dead. But we believe it to be necessary to increase the pressure on the parties to help seek a solution. The United Kingdom has put forward proposals for tightening the operation of sanctions across the Danube and for increasing the isolation of Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs if their aggression persists. I hope that that policy will be supported throughout the European Community and the United Nations.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to examine the effects of land contamination on job creation? In particular, will he examine the position of the Woolwich Arsenal site, which once employed 80,000 people in a single factory, but which now lies derelict in an area where male unemployment tops 62 per cent? Will he give a categorical assurance that, as the contamination was caused by the Ministry of Defence, the Government will meet the full cost of decontamination on that site and the neighbouring Thamesmead area?

The Secretary of State for Defence will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, will examine the matter and will respond to him.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great teaching profession clearly welcomes higher standards through the national curriculum, but appears to be flinching from achieving them through standard assessment tests? Does he further agree that it is vital, above all in the interests of our nation and our children, that the tests go ahead without delay?

I believe that we need national tests to raise standards and it is our intention that they shall go ahead. They are and remain a vital part of the national curriculum. Children need them, parents want them and I expect teachers to supervise them.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will meet the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shortly to discuss his disgraceful betrayal of British farmers with the proposed cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances—despite the promise, fewer than 18 months ago, that they were safe in his hands?

I meet my right hon. Friend many times a week, but, regardless of the cut in HLCAs to which the hon. Gentleman refers, hill farmers' incomes will be between £60 million and £70 million higher as a result of increased sheep premiums, the green pound devaluation and other market factors.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while any convert to conservatism is always welcome, if that conversion is coupled with a continuing opposition to British Rail privatisation, grant-maintained schools, GP fund-holding practices and compulsory competitive tendering, it shows that the conversion is insubstantial and entirely unreal? Is not that now the position of the Leader of the Opposition?

I welcome all conversions to conservatism, especially death-bed conversions—but they must be genuine conversions, not conversions that use the language of conservatism but remain wedded to the instincts and policies of socialism. Until the right hon. and learned Gentleman formally drops his commitment to clause 4, his opposition to privatisation and his idiotic proposal for a windfall tax, no one will take his conversion seriously.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to tell the President of the Board of Trade to get round the table with the Leyland DAF receiver, the management and the unions, in an attempt to save the van factory in Birmingham, which has a highly skilled and motivated work force of 2,000 people?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the receivers.

rose—

Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.

When my right hon. Friend is considering new measures to help the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, will he give careful consideration to the idea of relaxing the social security rules that affect availability for work, so that it is possible for people to do more than 24 hours a week of voluntary work and more than 21 hours a week of educational study—to their benefit and that of the country?

We have looked and are looking at a range of measures that might encourage people back into work. I cannot give my hon. Friend a particular undertaking on the point that he makes, but we are looking at a range of ways to assist.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

The Prime Minister's record is not a good one. Since he came to office in 1990, more than 1 million people have joined the unemployed queues and more than 100,000 training places have been lost. Is this the vision of Opportunity Britain, or is it a sign of the growing army of jobless whose lives have been wasted by the Government?

What we have sought to do and are doing is to put in place the economic circumstances that will create genuine and lasting jobs. That is why we have cut inflation to its lowest level for six years, brought interest rates down to their lowest for 15 years and put in place the most comprehensive training programme ever seen in this country. That is the only way to secure long-term, permanent jobs—not the quick fixes so beloved of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Cleethorpes by train.

I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include my hon. Friend's constituency among them.

I am delighted to hear that reply. Does my right hon. Friend recall the days when he and I used to travel on the train to Cleethorpes, which used to stop at Huntingdon? Is he aware that if he makes his official visit to Cleethorpes by train, after May this year he will have to change at Newark and hang around on the platform catching flu for hours on end because British Rail is taking away the direct train service to Cleethorpes? Does he agree that it is vital that British Rail should continue that service at least until the Railways Bill is on the statute book, when we can take advantage of the franchising opportunities of privatisation?

I recall those journeys with my hon. Friend with great pleasure, but British Rail's monopoly service means that it decides what services to run in the light of its view of passenger demand. I stress to my hon. Friend that British Rail's reluctance to change its service now is no bar to subsequent changes. The privatisation proposals will break British Rail's monopoly and will bring in private sector operators and I believe that part of those franchises will provide a better, cheaper and more effective service for the commuter.