To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for strengthening the British military contigent in former Yugoslavia.

The size and composition of the British contribution to United Nations deployments to the former Yugoslavia are kept under continuous review. I am at present satisfied that the 2,300-strong British contingent serving in Bosnia is of the right size and properly equipped for the important humanitarian tasks assigned to it. We are, however, discussing with the United Nations the future of the British Field Ambulance unit deployed in Croatia since last May, because we are concerned about whether its capacity is being fully utilised.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the Cheshires and all the other British military units in Bosnia the warmest congratulations of all quarters of the House on the superb job that they have done in the winter months this year in bringing humanitarian aid and relief supplies to the hard-pressed population of Bosnia?

I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. He chose to make a comparison with the situation in Iraq. but I am sure that he would be the first to recollect that the massive aerial bombardment of Saddam Hussein's troops in Kuwait did not lead to their departure from Kuwait, and that it was the use of ground forces on a massive scale, which my hon. Friend is ruling out in the case of Bosnia, that was required to expel Iraqi forces. Therefore, my hon. Friend must consider the implications of the Iraqi example that he has chosen to put before the House.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that if United Kingdom air or naval forces take sides in the fighting in Bosnia, by a form of aggression against some of the participants in the terrible fighting that is taking place there, the United Kingdom land forces will be withdrawn immediately from Bosnia?

We attach the highest priority to the safety and security of British forces, and it is clear that, even in their current humanitarian role, they suffer exposure to some considerable risk. For example, today a British helicopter in the Vitez area may have been hit by some sniper fire. Fortunately, there appear not to have been any consequences from that incident. But if United Nations forces were to be used in a combatant role, clearly the risks to British forces would be immeasurably higher.

Having been one of those with initial reservations about the deployment of British troops in Bosnia at all, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that diplomacy, backed by embargoes and sanctions against some and sustenance for others, is no longer adequate. Given our leadership of the Rapid Reaction Corps, Britain is uniquely well placed to give moral and military leadership in this tragic situation. Will my right hon. and learned Friend urge NATO to deploy elements of that corps so that British troops can work alongside our European allies without our bearing a disproportionate amount of the financial and human costs?

If my hon. Friend is envisaging what role might be played by the United Nations in the event of a ceasefire, clearly a contribution could be made by the Rapid Reaction Corps in helping to provide the necessary infrastructure of a United Nations operation. It is in that context that the possibility to which my hon. Friend has referred would be most relevant.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, if air strikes to interdict Serbian supply lines were introduced, the rules of engagement for our forces presently stationed in Bosnia, particularly at Vitez, would have to be changed, because our forces would have to go into the mountains to take the Serb guns—otherwise, they would be blown to pieces?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. An additional consideration must be taken into account by those who advocate the use of armed force by the United Nations. As we have seen in the last couple of days, there is a substantial increase in the conflict between Croat and Muslim forces—particularly in the Vitez area, where the British forces are concentrated. It is incredibly difficult to imagine a scenario in which the United Nations is required to use military force against some combatants but not others, when the bloodshed, loss of life and possibly even the atrocities committed can be found to be the responsibility of the different communities in Bosnia at present.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is completely unrealistic to imagine that a externally imposed military solution will be found? If there were to be increased military pressure—whatever the merits of that—from Britain, the United Nations or NATO, would that not be inconsistent with the widely praised humanitarian aid?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Government's extreme reservations about the use of military power in a combat role are partly because we have the gravest doubts that it would have the practical effect recommended for it by its adherents. We are substantially influenced also by the almost certain consequences for the humanitarian operations, which have been a great success and led to the saving of literally hundreds of thousands of lives in Bosnia over the last few months. That work would almost certainly have to be terminated, which would be a heavy price to pay. That aspect should influence the proper moral debate about the proper policy to pursue in Bosnia.

When a ceasefire is finally signed and the United Nations calls on countries to provide troops to enforce it, will Britain play her full part in maintaining that ceasefire? Is the Secretary of State confident that we have sufficient troops, and sufficient helicopters in particular, to play our full part?

If a ceasefire were signed by the three parties to the dispute, and we were satisfied that that represented a genuine qualitative change in the situation, of course there would be an obligation on the international community, through the United Nations, to do what it could to make the ceasefire a continuing reality and to achieve a permanent peace. The United Kingdom will of course want to ascertain its contribution in those circumstances, in the way suggested. I am satisfied that we could make a significant and substantial contribution, if we chose to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he plans to take to improve public access to his Department's training areas.

Ministry of Defence training land is required primarily for military purposes. So far as it is consistent with operational, safety and security considerations and the interests of our tenants, however, we continue to encourage public access and seek actively to improve access arrangements, providing additional facilities and information wherever there is opportunity to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British people have lost access through closures? Closures made this century in particular have been the result of land taken, rightly, for defence training purposes. Will my right hon. Friend keep a vigorous watch on such land, to ascertain how quickly it can be restored to the public—and meanwhile ensure that access can be enabled according to the needs of British defence interests?

I assure my hon. Friend that we keep that aspect constantly under review. I recommend to him the pamphlet, "Walks on Ministry of Defence land"— [Laughter.] I assure Opposition Members who are laughing that a copy is also in the Library. It points out the excellent walks the public can enjoy across training areas.

Will the Minister consider the training grounds near the village of Imber and the surrounding area on Salisbury plain? The MOD keeps that land closed to the general public, bar a few days each year—yet only a fortnight ago, a car rally was allowed, at which people could wander around freely over the land. Surely it is time to return that land to the village of Imber, as was promised when that land was appropriated in the war.

Imber is an integral part of our training area. It is difficult for us to allow perpetual public access to it, but, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, we allow such access whenever possible. I will look into the matter, and write to him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made on the development and deployment of the medium surface-to-air missile.

Work on the evaluation of medium surface-to-air missile tenders has now been completed and we are assessing the options in the context of our overall defence requirements. No decision has yet been made.

Will the Minister acknowledge that, since the withdrawal of the Bloodhound missile in 1991, the United Kingdom has become one of the few NATO countries without access to medium surface-to-air missiles? He has said that Ministers have now completed their examination of the long-term costs of the development of new systems to replace the Bloodhound over the next 15 years. When will he be able to make an announcement? Does he accept that, if we do not secure a replacement within 15 years, it would be very foolish to deploy the Eurofighter without being able to protect it effectively with a missile system?

I should point out that MSAM is not a replacement for the Bloodhound. It would provide part of a layered air defence for the United Kingdom, together with Rapiers and air defence fighters. I take account of the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for a next generation of missiles to protect the Eurofighter in certain circumstances. An announcement can be expected within the next few weeks.

Given that the RAF now has its full complement of air defence variant Tornados, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the state of British air defences?

Yes, I confirm that we are satisfied with the state of Britain's air defences. We have made a continuing commitment to invest heavily in the United Kingdom's air defence capability in recent years: so far, we have spent well over £7 billion at 1992 prices, with more than £1 billion to come. We have well over 100 fighter aircraft and three Rapier squadrons, and we believe that they are more than adequate to meet the foreseeable threat of air attacks on the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister turn his attention to the proposed tactical air-to-surface missile? It would cost £3 billion and is an unnecessary addition to our nuclear capability. Will the Minister confirm last week's press reports that the Government have at last taken the Opposition's advice and rightly decided to cancel TSAM?

Far from relying on the Opposition as a source of wisdom and advice, we regard many of their questions as coming from over-enthusiastic plumbers who race after every leak that appears in the press. The question is about MSAM; I will not be drawn in to the issue of TASM, beyond saying that no decision has yet been made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to continue the use of Bramcote barracks in the Nuneaton constituency.

Further defence uses for the site are being examined. I will, of course, keep the hon. Gentleman advised of developments.

Does not the Minister remember my bringing a deputation of civilian workers from Bramcote to see him three or four months ago? It is crucial to the local economy that Bramcote is retained in service use. I hope that the Minister will examine the matter seriously, especially when troops must be redeployed from Germany.

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to become over-enthusiastic, but I can tell him that we are looking very seriously at alternative Army use for the site. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement within the next few weeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the volunteer reserve forces.

The volunteer reserves will continue to provide a highly valued contribution to our defence capability. I am sure the House will join me in expressing admiration for the dedication and enthusiasm of all who serve in them. Work is continuing on the future role of the reserves, and proposals will be announced to the House later in the year.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, when we are planning the smallest Regular Army since the Napoleonic era in a very dangerous world, this is profoundly the wrong time to consider a second possible round of cuts in our already very full defence programme? Can I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that the real debate should be about enhancing the quality of our reserves and that that should start from the top by appointing a reservist to direct the reserves, as is the case in every other major English-speaking country?

I note my hon. Friend's interesting latter suggestion, which may indeed be worthy of consideration. It clearly is important to ensure not only that we have the number of reserves that is thought to be suitable to our requirements, but that we continue to look at the role of the reserves, because in a changed international strategic situation it would clearly be unwise and, I think, contrary to the interests of the reserves themselves, to assume that somehow their role, which might have been suitable during the cold war, would necessarily be the most appropriate in the circumstances of today. It may be that there will be a need, for example, for changed legislation to enable the reserves to be used more ably and flexibly for a multiplicity of roles, which would have been difficult, if not impossible, in the past.

Will the Secretary of State address himself to the fact that a number of his Department's premises in Wales are now becoming vacant? Could they be used in the context of the training of the volunteer reserves to help to provide sustenance for the local economy, which has been so devastated by certain cuts in his Department?

We shall naturally be willing to consider any proposal that is put to us by the hon. Gentleman or by any other hon. Member about the use of surplus assets, either for the reserves or, indeed, for any other relevant and useful role.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that not only has the Territorial Army contributed massively and valiantly this century to the defence of the nation in two world wars, but that it also has a most valuable social contribution to make? Will he therefore resist any Treasury blandishments to cut it further and do all he can to urge young people in particular to join the Territorial Army, since we shall all be the better for it?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's assessment is correct. I think the best contribution that we can make, both to the morale of the reserves and to the ability of the reserves to attract suitable people to their ranks is to ensure that they have a role in our defence thinking which is clearly relevant and appropriate to the needs of the 1990s.

I know that the Secretary of State remains alert, even during recesses. Did he therefore have the opportunity to read the report in The Sunday Times of 4 April, which affirmed that the Government were some £4 billion out in their three-year costing and that, as a result, they were considering further cuts, which included 12 battalions of the Territorial Army—9,600 men, bringing the number down to 52,000—and another round of compulsory redundancies, as well as five frigates? Will he therefore take this opportunity to deny that any of these are under consideration by the Government at present?

If the hon. Gentleman had read not only that report in The Sunday Times but the article that I wrote which The Sunday Times was good enough to publish a couple of days ago, he would have seen that I said in that article that, whenever proposals were put to Ministers, they were considered not only for their financial implications but as to whether they produced a coherent and sensible defence policy and that if they were not justified on defence grounds, the proposals would not be accepted. Therefore, these are the criteria which we shall apply not only to the reserves but to any other proposals affecting the defence programme at the present time.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many active volunteer reservists will be delighted that today he said that we are looking at and giving consideration to changing the law with regard to calling up reservists? That, I believe, was one of the lessons that we learned from the Gulf. Does he also recognise that another lesson from the Gulf was how effective it was to call up individual volunteer reservists in individual categories, who were able to make such an important impact on activities during that operation?

Yes, I think that there is no doubt that the current regulations and legislation governing the use of reserves are unnecessarily bureaucratic and complicated. For example, some weeks ago, when we wished to send one individual reservist who was fluent in Serb-Croat to Bosnia and that reservist was keen to go, it was nevertheless necessary to go through a complicated procedure, including a special report tabled before the House, before the legal power existed to carry out that relatively minor act with the volunteer who was anxious to be of service. I think that that illustrates the need for early reform in this area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department has been involved in commemorating the battle of the Atlantic and the western approaches.

My Department is responsible for the organisation of the military aspects of the commemoration. It is also working closely with the Chamber of Shipping, the Merseyside local authorities and other interested organisations to ensure that all those who took part in the battle, including members of the Merchant Navy, are properly commemorated in the events which are to take place in the Merseyside area during the last week of May.

Does the Minister recognise that the country and, therefore the Government owe a great debt to the merchant seafarers who during the war carried our troops and military hardware to every theatre of war, at a cost of 30,189 lives and 11·5 million tonnes of British shipping? I welcome recognition, even at this late stage, of the role played by merchant seamen during the war, but does not the Minister agree that the best way of repaying the men and women who sail our ships would be to revive our Merchant Navy and get our shipyards moving? That Government activity would be welcomed both by the Merchant Navy and by our shipyard workers.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reasons for the decline in the Merchant Navy are complex, involving taxation and the high cost to shipowners of employing British labour. We are certainly ensuring that the commemoration will include members of the Merchant Navy and that their organisations will be represented. When the commemoration takes place, it will be a great fillip for Merseyside; I gather that the local authorities are catering for about 2 million visitors who are expected to attend.

Bearing in mind the small but significant role played by South Africans in the battle of the Atlantic and the western approaches, would it not be appropriate if representatives of South Africa took part in the commemoration?

Yes indeed. My hon. Friend describes that role as small but significant; actually, about 10,000 South Africans served under the white ensign both in royal naval ships and in South African ships. Many more were involved in the Merchant Navy. We will ensure that an invitation goes to the South Africans, so that a South African ship may take part in the general commemoration. That invitation will go out this afternoon.

We note, and indeed join in, the Minister's tribute to Merchant Navy and Royal Navy personnel in days past, but why does he treat the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy of today so shamefully? Does he recall, just before Easter, sneaking out a parliamentary answer revealing that 2,300 Royal Navy personnel were to be made redundant? Will he explain to the House why, later the same evening, his Ministry revealed that the figure was really 5,000 rather than 2,300? Will he apologise to the House for withholding that information?

No, but I will put the record straight. There is never an ideal moment to announce another phase of redundancies, but the Royal Navy considered it important that the announcement be made before the Easter recess, so that the people concerned would know what was happening. The figure of 5,000 merely denoted forward plans for Royal Navy manpower levels; it was a purely theoretical figure based on estimates and has as much to do with contractorisation and market testing, which, as the hon. Gentleman must realise, involves replacing people in uniform with civilians, and thus does not affect the front line in any way. I am not sure that it is not a mistake to judge the efficiency of the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy by their manpower. We should judge them on the equipments they have. The number of ships and aircraft is more significant than the number of men.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received regarding the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia.

I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from members of the public.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that although I welcome our involvement in the imposition of the no-fly zone, what we seek in Bosnia.is a no-war zone, a no-killing zone and a no-starvation zone? Bearing in mind the excellent efforts in humanitarian aid made by British men and women, will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to resist the siren calls for token military action, which has no achievable military objective, but which would be certain to destroy the humanitarian efforts?

We will certainly judge any proposals for military action by the twin criteria of whether they would be likely to achieve the purpose for which they were designed and what implications they would have, as my hon. Friend rightly says, for the continuation of the humanitarian effort.

Does the Secretary of State recall that after the no-fly zone was declared and before it was implemented, the Government resisted calls for implementation on the ground that to do so might put at risk British forces and the humanitarian efforts in which they were engaged? Yet shortly before Easter, the Government acceded to the United Nations proposals for the implementation of the no-fly zone. Does not experience since then demonstrate that the no-fly zone could and should have been implemented much earlier, not least to show the resolve of the international community?

I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Government's reservations about enforcing the no-fly zone were a result of the fact that, until a few weeks ago, the Bosnian Serbs had made no attempt to breach it with combat aircraft. It seemed premature, therefore, and largely pointless to take such unnecessary action. When the Bosnian Serbs breached the zone on two occasions by the use of combat aircraft for bombing missions, it clearly became necessary for the United Nations to enforce its resolution and that is what the United Kingdom voted for.

Is not there a certain irony in the fact that we now have six RAF Tornados patrolling the skies over Bosnia, presumably ready to take unilateral aggressive action at a moment's notice, while on the ground below our troops depend for their very success and continued safety on their perceived neutrality? What steps has my right hon. and learned Friend taken to ensure that there will be no potential accident involving our air force which might jeopardise the security of our troops on the ground?

The Tornados that have been allocated to the enforcement of the no-fly zone are Tornado F-3s which are suitable for an air defence role and would not be used in ground attack missions. Therefore, the scenario to which my hon. Friend refers is unlikely to occur. There must, of course, always be a risk for all United Nations forces on the ground if other United Nations forces, whether British or from other countries, are carrying out missions in the air. That factor must be borne in mind through proper communications between the various United Nations units serving in Bosnia at present.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been issued with compulsory redundancy notices since the beginning of 1993.

Since the beginning of 1993, 628 Army officers have been selected for compulsory redundancy.

How many redundant officers does the Minister expect will find work elsewhere in the present circumstances of mass unemployment? Does he accept that the existing training and resettlement package is completely inadequate and does he agree that Ministry of Defence money should be used to create jobs rather than destroy them? Will he bring forward the announcement that the new Army personnel centre is being moved to the borders of my constituency in Glasgow?

I totally reject everything that the hon. Gentleman says. Our figures show that 70 per cent. of officers who left on redundancy during 1992–93 have either found jobs or moved overseas. That is a great mark of the efficiency of our resettlement schemes and of the suitability of the service men who leave to find jobs outside the Army. They are offering a tremendous amount to civilian life.

Does the Minister agree that it is a bit rich for Opposition Members to talk about redundancies in Army personnel when their defence policy talks of a 25 per cent. reduction? How many thousands of people would that policy make redundant? After all, as the Minister knows, that lot over there know about redundancies because they have been redundant for 14 years.

There is not much that I can add to my hon. Friend's remarks: he put it extremely well. There is no doubt whatever that at some stage the Labour party must shake off its resolution, which seems to be passed annually by its conference, that defence expenditure should be cut by the large percentages that Labour Members are always talking about.

During the Army debate on 24 February this year, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) brought to the attention of the House the fact that a number of soldiers serving with the Cheshire regiment in Bosnia had applied for redundancy only because their regiment was to be amalgamated. They wished to withdraw those applications when it was decided that the Cheshire regiment should be saved. The Minister refused to allow them to withdraw their notices, but said that they could appeal against them. He also said that he would take a personal interest in the matter. How many appeals were made and were any of them turned down?

I do not have that information at my fingertips. I made it clear that the soldiers were in a position to appeal and that their appeals would be sympathetically considered. I will check on the position and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the issue of the integrated Army personnel centre is still not resolved and that he is still considering York as a possible location for the centre? Does he acknowledge the attraction of York, both in terms of its location in the centre of the United Kingdom and the excellent MOD personnel who are already employed there?

Yes, indeed. One of the important criteria that we have used is that there should be core numbers of employed people already working in an Army personnel centre and that is one of the advantages that York gives us. Having said that, there is also the consideration, which militates against York, that we may decide in favour of an existing building rather than go for building a new one on a green-field site. Certainly, York is still within the frame and has not been ruled out.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units of the British armed forces are available for operations undertaken by the Western European Union.

In principle, all the United Kingdom's conventional armed forces are available for military operations conducted under the auspices of the Western European Union. Military units for WEU operations would be drawn on a case-by-case basis from forces with national and NATO roles—in the latter case, after consultation with our NATO allies.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a serious possibility that our resources may be overstretched in the light of our existing commitments to NATO, the United Nations, Northern Ireland and now the enhanced Western European Union? In the specific case of the Western European Union, can he give a guarantee that if the new planning cell in Brussels provides new commitments, they will be made publicly known so that the House will be able to judge whether we have sufficient resources to meet any new commitments?

Yes, of course, any new commitments for our armed forces must become publicly known. The new arrangements involving the Western European Union do not imply additional commitments: they simply suggest that in certain circumstances it may be more appropriate for the WEU, rather than NATO, to sponsor certain operations. That would largely depend on whether the United States and Canada were likely to be involved in a specific matter, so that is the sort of circumstance which we envisage as potentially arising.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be unwise for western nations to become involved in a civil war unless that specific civil war posed a threat to the integrity of one of the union's number?

That is indeed the case. At present, the WEU is making a useful contribution with regard to the monitoring of shipping in the Adriatic. It is also suggested that the WEU might have a contribution to make in monitoring sanctions-breaking on the Danube. Clearly, those are the sorts of roles in which the WEU could be usefully employed as part of a wider international operation.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that if the full capacity of the Western European Union together with NATO, acting under the auspices of the United Nations, were deployed in Bosnia, an effective ceasefire could be imposed within a relatively short period? It is not a question of capacity that deters the Secretary of State; it is a calculation that the effort would not be worth the saving of the civilian population in Bosnia.

The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misunderstanding. The WEU has no assets of its own. Any assets that might be made available to the WEU are assets which would otherwise be available to NATO. The hon. Gentleman should not try to add one on top of the other and imply that there is some massive force available only if requested.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on defence expenditure levels.

I have received several representations on defence expenditure levels from hon. Members and members of the public. I am keen that, in this important area, we should be able to inform the public debate better than we have done in the past. I therefore commissioned some months ago, in the context of our annual long-term costing exercise, a detailed analysis of how and what resources are taken up in meeting our various commitments around the world. A great deal of work has already been done on this. I expect to report the results in the statement on the defence estimates 1993.

What logic is there in consistently calling for massive defence cuts of 25 per cent.—equivalent to more than the Royal Air Force—as Labour conferences still do, supported by many of their Front-Bench Members of Parliament, and then complaining every time that the Government, as a result of their much smaller cuts, have to close a depot or merge a regiment? Most ludicrous of all, the Leader of the Opposition struts and postures as the tough guy, Bomber Smith, demanding action in Bosnia.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the question on the Order Paper and not concern himself with Opposition policies. Does the Secretary of State wish to make a response?

rose—

I am sure that the Secretary of State's response will be perfectly in order.

Of course, Madam Speaker, that goes without saying. In the debate about defence expenditure levels, it is crucial that the Opposition follow the views of the Government and do not call for expenditure cuts, yet complain if difficult decisions have to be taken.

When contemplating the expenditure of Her Majesty's armed forces and participating in the debate to which he has just referred, will the Secretary of State explain to the House why there has been a massive overspend in the construction, equipping and commissioning of HMS Fort Victoria? It is a scandalous case over which he has presided as Secretary of State for Defence. Why is there delay, why has there been an overspend, and whose heads will roll?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that in this project, as in any other, there will be the most rigorous analysis of the causes of the overspending to ensure that it does not recur.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to bring together the legal departments of the three services.

There are no such plans at present.

I hope that my right hon. Friend might have a look at the matter. Is he aware that the numbers involved are small these days? After a serious cut in the number of regiments, squadrons and ships, should not we look for savings in the tail of the defence services?

Yes. Since my hon. Friend raised the matter, I have had a look at it. As he said, the only area in which an amalgamation could be effected would be between the Army and RAF legal departments, which employ 50 and 25 people respectively. That possibility has been considered, but it has been found that no appreciable savings could be made. Economies of scale can be achieved from the incorporation of the Army legal department in the Adjutant General's Corps.

How come that the Ministry of Defence apparently cannot make savings when the Lord Chancellor is asking the rest of legal aid to do so?

The savings that we seek are obviously in terms of reducing overheads. There are no overheads to be reduced in the small legal departments. As I have said already, the Army legal department has been incorporated in the Adjutant General's Corps. That will give all the advantages of savings in overheads.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the Belgian Navy about compensating Isle of Wight fishermen for damaged gear.

Several representations have been made by my Department to the Belgian navy, via its defence attaché in London, in respect of one fisherman's claim for damaged gear.

Will my hon. Friend review the arrangements for all NATO navies that operate inside United Kingdom territorial waters to compensate fishermen for damage to gear? The arrangements should be the same as for the Royal Navy. It came as a complete surprise to me and my constituents that a navy that is a member of NATO and operating in our home waters was not liable to pay compensation for damage to the gear of British fishermen.

I assure my hon. Friend that if the navy had been on a NATO exercise, the claim would have been settled by the Ministry of Defence and a subsequent claim for 75 per cent. of the total would have been made to the Belgians. In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, it was not a NATO exercise. The Belgian navy was operating on its own. As my hon. Friend knows, the accident happened in March last year. It is for the Belgians to settle this claim, which has been going on for much too long. My Department will do everything that it can to hasten the settlement of this claim.

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

British forces continue to play a major part in supporting the United Nations in the former Yugoslavia. They operate in difficult and frequently dangerous conditions with the superb professionalism that we have come to expect. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to all those involved in this important work.

Will the Defence Secretary have another go at answering the question that I asked earlier? If NATO forces were to be fully deployed in Bosnia under United Nations auspices, would not they have the capability of imposing an effective ceasefire within a relatively short period of time?

The hon. Gentleman's question implies that military involvement by NATO would be a short, sharp exercise. He has to accept that very few would agree with that judgment. He might reflect on the fact that the United Nations operation in Cyprus, an infinitely less difficult operation, has continued for over 28 years. The hon. Gentleman should consider whether that might apply in the case of Bosnia.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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.

Will the Prime Minister today decide when he intends to visit Liverpool, where he can meet local trade union leaders to discuss the very high level of unemployment? Incidentally, he might visit Liverpool, Riverside, which has the highest level of unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales—32 per cent. Will he also consider visiting Liverpool next month for the commemoration of the battle of the Atlantic and western approaches? Her Majesty the Queen is coming and, in 1940, Mr. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister, came several times, as did King George VI. Will the Prime Minister consider coming there?

I have indeed received an invitation to attend the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, in which Liverpool and its people played such a significant part. I have accepted that invitation and I look forward to that event very much indeed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of Norway's largest ship owners, Gearbulk, has recently decided to relocate to London, giving as its reason that it wants to be at the centre of things? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that Britain, with a low corporate tax structure and a Conservative Government, remains the best place in the world in which to do business?

I was not aware of that piece of welcome news and I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said. We very much welcome inward investment from both within and beyond the European Community. We are determined to maintain in this country the economic circumstances and the relatively low on-costs to employment which will continue to attract inward investment.

While it is essential that the sanctions against Serbia be intensified and properly enforced, as indeed they should have been months ago, is it not now necessary for a clear ultimatum to be issued to the Serbs that they will not be allowed to continue their aggression unchecked and that, if they continue that aggression, their lines of supply within Bosnia will be subject to air attack?

We had a lengthy statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday in which he set out the present position and the discussions we are having with our partners in the United Nations. The House recognised yesterday that the road to further action, particularly if it leads to military action, which is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question implied, is fraught with peril. Once one goes down it, there is no turning back. We must first be confident that that is the right direction.

While there are risks in any course of action, and I would not seek to minimise them, do not they have to be weighed carefully against the possibly greater risks of non-action? Surely what is badly needed is a demonstration of United Nations determination. How will the Government respond, for example, if the Serbs proceed to take the crucial towns of Gorazde and Zepa? Should not they be warned now that such action on their part will not be tolerated?

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend say again yesterday, we are not excluding those options; we are considering them seriously and discussing them with our allies. I have spoken recently with both the French and American Presidents, but we have not yet reached a decision about the balance of advantage in those particular courses. They could cause fighting to escalate, civilian casualties to rise and an end to the humanitarian operation.

Following the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of many British citizens who were members of a cult in the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend have conversations with the Home Secretary with a view to setting up a working party to see how we can best limit the recruitment of British citizens into those evil cults?

There are a number of undesirable cults and I share my hon. Friend's concern. It would be difficult to focus legislation to restrict the establishment of cults or religious movements because it would be difficult to determine what groups should be included in the legislation and what groups should be excluded. However, we have powers under the criminal law and we are prepared and willing to use them to regulate the behaviour of individuals when they may infringe the rights of other people. We also have powers under the immigration laws to prohibit the entry of people who may wish to establish such cults, if it is thought that they would be damaging to our interests.

In the Prime Minister's previous answer, he rightly referred to the importance of humanitarian aid. Has he noticed that today the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has called for the establishment of a United Nations protected safe haven in Zepa and Gorazde? How will he respond to that question?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the UNHCR wants to set up safe areas by agreement with the parties in those areas and does not want the United Nations to be an active participant in the conflict. To that extent, it differs quite radically from the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me about some days ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there has to be further military intervention in Bosnia, it should be done under NATO command with American participation, backed by United Nations resolutions supported by Russia?

I see no other circumstances in which it would be practicable to expect any military authority to be there and to succeed. Anything short of action in the circumstances set out by my hon. Friend would be unacceptable and would be unlikely to be agreed. Those are only the circumstances, but I stress that that would be a very grave step and it is not yet the policy of any of the major Governments in the United Nations.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study the public sector borrowing requirement figure announced today? Does he realise that £9·5 billion is the highest recorded figure of any Government for any one month? It is £1 million more than the Chancellor announced in his Budget last month. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many forecasters, who believe that that points to a real underlying problem about our economy? What is he going to do about it?

It is an interesting question from the hon. Gentleman. I hope I can assume from it that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about borrowing that he will support our new controls on public spending. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in imposing limits on public sector pay and on keeping caps on council spending. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why he supported the Delors proposals for Community spending which would have cost us millions. He might explain why his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said that he was prepared to debate with the Community over our rebate. All those matters relate to our borrowing requirement; upon none of them have we ever had the support of the hon. Gentleman or any right hon. or hon. Member in his party. Words from him about restraints on public spending are very hollow indeed.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers have a moral duty to do their very best for their pupils and that that means carrying out testing this summer? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Britain spends a higher percentage of its GDP on education than Germany and Japan, but that in Germany children are taught and tested over 1,260 hours per year, whereas children in Britain are taught for as little as 850 hours per year and would remain untested if some teacher unions have their way, supported by the disruptive attitude of the Labour party?

As a former head teacher, my hon. Friend speaks with particular authority on this matter. A boycott of testing would certainly not be in the interests of our children. We need tests—and need them this year—as Sir Ron Dearing, among others, has made clear. My hon. Friend is right that our principal competitors have national curricula and regular testing. Any attempt to sabotage our reforms could damage our long-term ability to compete and damage the education of our children.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent integrated administration control system forms which have been issued at the behest of the European Community. These are a great headache to the farming community because they are time limited; they have to be in by 15 May. Farmers also have to have plans mapped out in hectares. In my constituency, for example, only two thirds of land has been surveyed for that purpose. I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to ask the EC to extend the time limit and to consider defraying the expenses of those who have spent on survey fees privately for this purpose.

There are difficulties with this and I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Although I doubt whether it is feasible to extend the time limit, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture is seeking to help farmers in that situation within the rules of the terms of the scheme. Maps that can be used are available, but we have always recognised that some farmers may have difficulty getting maps of the right scale. Where maps cannot be obtained, farmers should provide the best alternative that they can.

To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the South African Government regarding political change in South Africa.

We are in regular contact at all levels with the South African Government and other parties involved in the current constitutional negotiations. I shall be seeing Mr. Mandela and Chief Buthelezi in the next few weeks. I am also in touch with President de Klerk.

As the tragedy of South Africa unfolds and, for the time being, the men of violence have their way, will my right hon. Friend urge President de Klerk not to give ground to the enemies of democracy or mob rule, but, rather, to continue negotiations, especially with moderate black leaders, so that the new South Africa may be better than the old?

My hon. Friend knows South Africa well and I agree with him that negotiations are the only way to reach the goal of a non-racial, democratic South Africa. The concessions that the ANC is seeking, covering both the election date and the establishment of a transitional executive council, are matters for the constitutional negotiations. I urge all parties to address issues in that forum.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

Has the Prime Minister had, as I have, the shared joy of being present at the birth of his children? Does he share with me and the Royal College of Midwives deep concern at the massive increase in the use of Caesarian sections in all parts of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that I have been told in parliamentary replies that the rate has risen from 5·3 to 13 per cent. in England and to 14 per cent. in Scotland and that women are now threatened in one out of eight cases with surgery in what should be the pleasant experience of childbirth? Does he think that it is time that we had a childbirth charter to protect women from the scalpel when they should have a normal childbirth?

The answer to the first part of the question is yes, on two occasions. The second part is essentially a matter for the individual mother and her surgeon and doctor. I confess that I was not aware of the growth of Caesarian section births and it is a matter which, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.