To ask the secretary of state for Defence what plans he has to procure more tanks for the Army; and if he will make a statement.

I announced on 1 December that, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory contractual terms, we intend to place a further order with Vickers Defence Systems for up to 259 Challenger 2 main battle tanks.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the announcement that the Government intended to buy 259 further challenger tanks was warmly welcomed by David brown Gears in my constituency, because the company makes the challenger gearboxes? When exactly will the order be placed? Can my right hon. and learned friend confirm that such an order would not have been possible if the Government had had a defence policy of cutting defence spending by £7 billion, as Labour has, or a policy of cutting it by 50 per cent., as the Liberal democrats have?

My hon. Friend is certainly correct in saying that our announcement should have important employment implications in Leeds, in Newcastle, in his constituency and elsewhere because of the implications for many subcontractors. The actual date for placing the order will depend on the successful negotiations that we hope to have with Vickers. My hon. Friend is, of course, entirely correct in believing that such a proposal could not even have been entertained with the defence budgets to which the Labour party and the liberal Democrat party appear to be committed by their party conferences.

Will the Secretary of State accept the thanks of the Vickers workers in my constituency for defeating the Treasury and placing the order? Will he confirm that he is determined to resist further approaches from the Treasury and that the order will become a reality as soon as possible?

We were able to place the proposals before Vickers because we defeated the Labour party at the general election. If we had failed to defeat the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman's constituents would not be as satisfied as they clearly are today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what time scale he envisages for the tender of helicopters for the armed forces.

For our attack helicopter requirement, tenders have already been received and are being assessed. For our support helicopter requirement, we are currently entering negotiations with Westland and with Boeing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the negotiations for the Royal Air Force support helicopter can be completed by the end of May this year and that the negotiations for the attack helicopter can be completed by April next year? Can he confirm those dates? Does he agree that the 50 per cent. defence cut proposed in the Liberal Democrat defence policy and a reduction in nuclear arms do not fit easily with the strong words of the leader of the Liberal Democrats? Is it any surprise that the music at the Liberal Democrats' parliamentary ball was provided by the zig-zags?

My hon. Friend is broadly correct in his estimate of the time scale for attack helicopter procurement. The support helicopter negotiations are likely to take several months longer than he anticipated. All I can say on the zig-zags in Liberal Democrat policy is that if any Government implemented the defence cuts for which the Liberal Democrat conference called, the only helicopters that they would be likely to buy for our armed forces would be those on sale in toyshops.

As the Wessex is in its 30th year of service with the Royal Air Force, when does the Minister expect it to be replaced? Does he believe that the Air Mobile Brigade will be able to maintain adequate heavy lift capacity?

The Wessex remains an extremely effective and good helicopter despite its age because it has been consistently well maintained and its parts have been replaced. We are now studying proposals for replacements for the Wessex. In response to the hon. Gentleman's second question, yes, we are confident that the Air Mobile Brigade can be adequately supported by helicopters.

Will my hon. Friend get back to the basics of warfare by reminding the generals that, at the end of the day, the important thing is to get men on the ground? Instead of spending money on tanks, which are rapidly becoming redundant, he might seek to modernise the British Army by spending the same on helicopters.

One of the many virtues of the EH101 helicopter that my hon. Friend has championed in Adjournment debates and elsewhere is its survivability. That quality is appropriate to the future of support helicopters in addition to lift capability, which is also an important consideration.

In April 1987, the then Secretary of State for Defence assured the House that the Ministry of Defence would place an order for 25 EH101 s for the RAF. In December last year, the present Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Defence that the negotiations would start immediately for the purchase of the EH101 and Chinook. Why has the Minister told us today that those negotiations will be subject to even further delay?

The last time the hon. Gentleman intervened in a debate on this subject, he accused me of deliberately rushing through decisions on helicopters for party political purposes. Now he has accused me of going too slow. The reason that there has been a delay since 1987 is that, unlike the Labour party, the world has changed since then and there have been important security alterations in the balance of power. We have, quite appropriately, had to consider carefully what helicopters are necessary for that changed security environment. We are now moving forward at a pace which we believe pleases most objective observers, including those at the helicopter companies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is having discussions at ministerial level with the Department of Health concerning the future use of the Queen Elizabeth hospital in the borough of Greenwich.

Discussions are continuing and, subject to the resolution of outstanding issues, both Departments would hope that agreement on the question of the possible sale of the hospital to the Greenwich Healthcare Trust will be achieved in the near future.

I welcome that information. May I say that the services provided by the hospital are held in great regard and affection in Eltham, Woolwich and the rest of the borough of Greenwich. It would be a fine thing if the Queen Elizabeth military hospital could become the replacement for the Brooke on the other side of Shooters Hill and absorb some of the services from Greenwich district hospital as well.

Satisfactory levels of medical and clinical activity will be sustained during the period, and we envisage that there will be shared use at the hospital. I am pleased that the resolution of matters is now rapidly concluding. Some financial and other details need to be dealt with in the next few weeks, but I hope that the matter can be put out for consultation in late spring or early summer, resulting, possibly, in a sale by the end of the year.

Can the Minister be a little bit more precise about the implications of shared use? How many beds are likely still to be required by the MOD at the hospital in the years ahead? How long will the MOD require millitary use of that hospital, thereby determining the date on which it will finally become available to the national health service?

Two hundred and three beds, by 1998.

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

The Government will continue to provide support to United Nations humanitarian relief operations in Bosnia through the winter.

I am sure that the whole House will want to pay tribute to the work that our British troops are doing in Bosnia. Is the Minister aware, however, of the credibility gap that is undermining both NATO's role and that of the UN because of their failure to take sufficiently severe action against Serbian aggression? Will the Government now support immediate selective air strikes to get the airport at Tuzla reopened and, most of all, to lift the siege of Sarajevo?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to pay tribute to what is being achieved by the British contingent in Bosnia. I know that the whole House would want me to congratulate it, especially as we approach the most difficult months of the winter. So far, 1,675 convoys have been escorted by British troops—more than 80,000 tonnes of aid. In addition, more than 1,000 flights have been carrying aid to Sarajevo and more than 14,500 tonnes of aid have been delivered in that way.

May I express my appreciation for the appointment of Commander, United Kingdom Land Forces, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose as general officer commanding-designate of United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia? Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the general officer will go out to the theatre with any new political instructions from Her Majesty's Government or other United Nations countries with troops assigned to the theatre?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose. He will assume command of the United Nations protection force in Bosnia-Herzegovina soon, and shall be out there by the end of month; and I know that he will carry out his task superbly. He is a magnificent soldier, and no change in role is foreseen.

Does the Minister agree that the language of declarations threatening air strikes is much less significant than the political will that lies behind such declarations? The Government have shown little enthusiasm for air strikes over the past 12 months. What has changed that we should now believe that the Government have the political will to carry them out?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is questioning the political will of the nations that came together at the NATO summit and reconfirmed the commitment to air strikes, as they had done in August, he will see that it is the strongest commitment that could have possibly been given towards air strikes. If he watches in the days ahead, he may realise that our commitment is a darn sight more than his party's commitment to defence. Instead of mouthing generalities, NATO is getting on with the job.

Does my hon. Friend accept that any ultimatum given to Serbia or the Serbs following today's declaration must be clear and unequivocal, and that if it is not accepted, it must be followed by action?

I accept that threats are credible only if it is believed that they are likely to be carried out. However, we hope that the action that they are threatening will not take place. If the actions by others not to carry out the sort of acts that have occurred recently—happily, it seems that there have been fewer shelling attacks on Sarajevo yesterday and today—perhaps the threats will have worked. There certainly remains the political will and the military capability to carry out those threats if necessary.

The Prime Minister's much-touted claim this morning to have persuaded NATO to strengthen its stance on bombing of the Serbs in Bosnia stands ill with the long official communiqué from NATO which merely dismissed the matter in two short sentences beginning with the words, "We reaffirm". In view of that, can I ask the Minister whether there has been any change in NATO and Government policy, or whether this is merely another example of PR hype?

Of course it is not a matter of pure PR hype.

Is there any change?

The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) degrades the efforts of the NATO countries in coming to their conclusions and in bringing clearly to the attention of the world their intentions with regard to Bosnia.

Is there any change?

It is easy to be dismissive of help in—

Is there any change?

The hon. Gentleman at the back is chattering away and saying, "Is there any change?"

Order.

There is change daily in Bosnia. We react daily to the situation in Bosnia. We are helping to save lives in Bosnia, and we are making sure that we have the wherewithal to act if the situation gets worse in Bosnia. We will continue to do that. There is no media hype. The Prime Minister will report to the House in due course on the summit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that air strikes, however selective, increase the risk that the British forces, as part of the United Nations, could be perceived as the fourth side in the civil war? Will he ensure that Her Majesty's Government do not enter into any commitment that they cannot fulfil?

I can assure my hon. Friend that if there were air strikes, they would not be taken unilaterally by the United Kingdom forces but would be part of the international effort. Therefore, I do not believe that the United Kingdom should be seen to be a fourth party. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that air strikes change the situation and make it more difficult to deliver aid on the ground. That has to be borne in mind with each passing day.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to improve the defence of the British Isles.

The Government's plans for the defence of the United Kingdom and for our wider security interests are detailed in the White Paper "Defending Our Future", and in my evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 1 December.

Is not the greatest danger to Britain and the rest of the world the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially to the new tyrannies that are growing up from the right and the left? Is it not an act of insanity for Britain to commission THORP, which will create enough plutonium to make 50,000 nuclear weapons in the next 10 years, and to export the plutonium to the four corners of the world? Was the Secretary of State consulted on the defence implications of the commissioning of THORP?

Naturally, I was involved in the discussions that took place on the matter. I am entirely satisfied that the hon. Gentleman's assertions are plain nonsense. First, we have not the slightest intention of exporting any of the material to countries that do not conform absolutely to their international commitments. Secondly, the material in question could not, without the most extreme difficulty, be converted for any military purpose. The hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware of that.

In relation to the defence of the United Kingdom, will my right hon. and learned Friend look closely at the potential threat that is likely to develop towards the end of the decade of a surface-to-surface missile attack on this country from various emergent nations in the middle east?

My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to such a problem. We already have reason to believe that countries such as Libya have a missile capability that could threaten Italy or parts of southern France. As the years go by, it is possible that a range of such missiles could penetrate much further north. It is one of the new emerging threats of which NATO as a whole and Britain must take increasing account in our future defence plans.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in terms of the defence of the United Kingdom, and despite the wishes of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the IRA has already decided to reject any opportunity of peace, and is simply trying to find a way of rejecting the Downing street declaration? Is he satisfied, in the light of that information, that regiments such as the Parachute Regiment are adequately manned for the role that they have to carry out in Northern Ireland? There are reports that such regiments are having to depend on the territorials to make up numbers. Can the Secretary of State tell us what the knock-on effect on our special forces will ultimately be?

First, I am sure that the whole House will unite in condemning the vicious attack in the past 24 hours in Crossmaglen, which resulted in serious injury to two soldiers serving in Northern Ireland. It is not unusual for individual territorials to serve in Northern Ireland, but I am conscious of the fact that it is important that any unit, whether serving in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, should be as fully manned as possible. One reason why I announced last December an increase of some 3,000 in the field Army was precisely to help ease the difficulties that occasionally occur.

On maximising resources for the defence of the United Kingdom, why is my right hon. and learned Friend allowing the Navy to empty a large office building in my constituency at the Royal Navy spare parts department and then to construct a new building—to all intents and purposes exactly the same—in the Bath area, as part of the new Naval Support Command?

I understand my hon. Friend's natural concern on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that the proposal to which he refers was strenuously examined. We concluded that it was right to go ahead with that proposal only because we were satisfied that there would be substantial cost benefits for the armed forces.

The Secretary of State must have been made aware over the past months of the anxiety among senior Territorial Army officers that, although the forces at their command are adequate now, if the proposed cuts are implemented, they will not be adequate for the task of regenerating British forces. What reassurances can he give our TA that it will have the capability to carry out the assigned task of regenerating our forces?

The hon. Gentleman refers to proposed cuts in the TA. I am aware of no such proposed cuts. A review is going on into the future size and structure of the TA, but it has yet to make recommendations to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman's comments are premature, to say the least. He should be joining in the welcome that the TA has given to the Government's proposal to make much wider and more flexible use of the reserves. We published that proposal recently and, as the hon. Gentleman should be well aware, it has been widely welcomed throughout the Territorial Army.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to place a contract for the conversion of type 911 tracker radars to meet the requirement for vertical launched Sea Wolf on type 23 frigates.

An order for the conversion of the type 911 tracker radars is currently planned for the spring.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency. If the contract is placed with Marconi Radar, it will help to safeguard jobs there. However, will my hon. Friend seek to clarify exactly what "the spring" means? Is there a chance that the contract will be determined before 31 March? Will the contract be similar to the original contract bid put out in August 1992?

All that I can say in response to my hon. Friend, remembering his assiduous representations in Adjournment debates and at other times on that subject, is that we will do our best to try to ensure that spring comes a little early to Chelmsford this year.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the shipyard workers of Tyneside on the quality of the type 23 frigates that they have already delivered to the Royal Navy? Will he also confirm that the Ministry of Defence regards Swan Hunter as an important supplier of equipment to the Royal Navy, and that it envisages a future for Swan Hunter, in spite of its present difficulties? Will he now list the work that could be immediately available to Swan Hunter were it purchased by a private sector shipbuilder?

I am certainly glad to pay a warm tribute to the high skills of Tyneside shipbuilders in general and Swan Hunter in particular. I confirm that we should like to do everything possible to ensure that Swan Hunter has a future. For that reason, we have not only let the existing type 23s continue to be finished there but have provided some extra work in the shape of the rectification contract on Fort George. In terms of future work that Swan Hunter might be able to win, I believe that a tender is now out for a ship life extension programme of landing ship logistics for which I think Swan Hunter may be bidding. Of course in future we should like to see a new owner for Swan Hunter to guarantee its viability, but in terms of technical quality there is no reason whatever why Swan Hunter should not submit a first-class bid for that or other MOD work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the defence budget for 1992–93 as a percentage of gross domestic product; and what are the planned figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

The defence budget was equivalent to 4·1 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1992–93. It is expected to be 3·7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1993–94 and 3·5 per cent. in 1994–95.

Against that background of contraction in the defence budget, the Minister will know of my concern about the proof and experimental establishment at Pendine in my constituency. I understand that the final recommendation on rationalisation of the direct labour test and evaluation is on the Minister's desk. Can he give some idea when decisions will be made and say whether they will be announced in the form of a statement to the House?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in assuming that we are at a fairly advanced stage in considering the matter to which he has referred. We hope to come to a conclusion in the next few weeks.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the figures include alleged savings made by the closure of HMS Malabar? Will he explain why that closure was announced on the day before Christmas recess when very few hon. Members were present, although he had given an undertaking that important closures of that kind, of strategic Royal Navy bases, would be made in the House and not leaked to the press the day before an announcement was made?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is being most uncharitable, and that is in increasingly characteristic form. He ought to be aware that the naval significance of the base that he mentions is not of the same order as in the past. At present, it is largely used merely for rest and recreation. Modern frigates do not require refuelling in the way that was required in the past. We have had full consultations with the Government of Bermuda, and it is right and proper that we should not incur unnecessary expenditure. I pay great tribute to the important part that HMS Malabar played in past years. However, modern technology and requirements mean that it is no longer necessary.

Does the Secretary of State agree that a sensible approach to public expenditure on defence is to seek value for money? If he does, will he explain why he is planning to waste taxpayers' money and lose control of vital strategic interests by going ahead with the privatisation of the two dockyards?

I do not think that there is any question of losing control in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. As she is aware, both yards were contractorised and have been run by the private sector for several years. That has led to substantial improvements in both yards. It is in the long-term interests of the yards for them to be transferred to the private sector.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that any reduction in the budget for 1994–95 will affect support services and not our front-line capability? In particular, will he confirm that every aspect of our support services, including fleet maintenance, will be subject to impartial and rigorous scrutiny so that we can ensure value for money for the Navy and the taxpayer?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is right and proper to have rigorous scrutiny of ways of reducing the cost of providing the defence services that are needed. I am happy to confirm that, in doing that, we are determined not to reduce the fighting capability of our armed forces.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the Russian Defence Minister to discuss European security.

I expect to meet General Grachev at a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers and their counterparts from the member states of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, to be held later this year.

Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the rising support in Russia for the fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a man who has threatened a third world war? Is he aware that even the Yeltsin Government have so far failed to recognise the borders of Ukraine, which is contrary to the requirements of international law under the CSCE agreement, to the Paris charter, and to yesterday's NATO communiqué? When he next meets hisRussian counterpart, will he impress on him the fact that if we are to get the Ukraine to carry out its policy of getting rid of nuclear weapons, it will be vital to obtain firm assurances from Russia that there will be no intervention in neighbouring states, either in the so-called near abroad or in any of the former republics of the Soviet Union?

Naturally it is important that Russia recognises the independence and integrity of all the former republics of the former Soviet Union, and it is also crucial that neither Mr. Zhirinovsky nor others in Russia harbour any illusion that somehow the old Russian empire could be recreated. There is every sign that in the near future there will be an announcement of an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, in which President Clinton seems to have played a major part, and which will help to resolve the long-standing problem of nuclear weapons in Ukraine and help to bring further stability to that important region.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that recently, in rejecting calls for cuts in defence expenditure, the Swedish Defence Minister went on to say that Sweden should increase its spending by about 30 per cent. because the Russians had failed to cut the number of their troops near Sweden? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that has a huge bearing on us? In his future discussions with the Treasury will he draw that fact to its attention and point out that there is still a strong potential threat from Russia?

It is undoubtedly true that Russia remains a nuclear super-power, and also a formidable conventional power. The reductions in the defence forces of the NATO states have taken into account the massive reductions made by Russia, but I entirely accept that it is necessary to monitor the situation carefully and to ensure that throughout Europe, including Russia, the various countries concerned are not in any way rearming or imposing new threats.

When the Secretary of State next meets the Russian Defence Minister, will he stress the desire of the people of the west to live in peace and harmony with those of Russia, but will he also stress that it is not a hostile act to wish to determine our own security arrangements and that Russia should not expect to veto the expansion of NATO, which in due course will increase the stability of the whole continent?

NATO has made it clear, most recently in the summit that has just finished, that its future expansion is indeed a possibility, and that the "Partnership for Peace" proposals do not preclude the possibility that a number of states that have shown an interest in joining NATO may one day be members. The present priority is for NATO to develop links with all the countries of central and eastern Europe, including Russia itself, but the possibility of additional membership cannot be excluded.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his priorities in relation to reducing the risk of global conflict in 1994.

The Government's plans for the defence of the wider security interests of the United Kingdom are set out in "Defending our Future", the 1993 statement on the defence estimates, a copy of which is in the Library.

Given that events in places such as Korea cannot give any encouragement to the belief that we are succeeding in nuclear non-proliferation around the world, and given the decision announced in the House before Christmas to go ahead with THORP, unless the court case that begins on Thursday overturns the position —whatever else that decision may be, it cannot make nuclear non-proliferation less likely—will the Government state what they intend to do this year to implement their obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to

"pursue negotiations in good faith"

The United Kingdom Government's policy on the non-proliferation treaty is to work towards its unconditional indefinite extension in 1995. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we have shown our readiness to reduce our nuclear arsenal wherever we can. In addition to the recent announcement on warhead numbers by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, we have reduced our RAF nuclear strike squadrons from 11 to eight, we have given up our nuclear artillery and Lance missile roles, we have reduced our WE177 stockpile by more than half, and we have eliminated our maritime sub-strategic nuclear capability.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we can enhance our contribution to the task of reducing the risk of global conflict by reducing our support services costs in favour of front-line forces? In the context of privatisation and the front-line force review, will my hon. Friend consider freezing the decision to move the RAF's support management group in my constituency to RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire so that a market test can be undertaken, without the cost of the move, into the possibility of retaining that group in Harrogate?

I think that my hon. Friend has the support of the House when he says that the most effective British forces are those with the greatest capability in the front line. We do, however, need effective and efficient support. That has to be looked at and we should certainly not cut back on the front line at the cost of allowing ineffective and inefficient support.

Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest threats to global security today is the rise of nationalism and facism? Does he not consider that one of the best ways to fight that rise is to indicate strongly to the Serbian fascists that their aggression will not be tolerated?

I think that the whole House will agree with the hon. Lady. I should add, however, that the Serbs are not the only people who can be guilty of those charges.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purpose of the "front line first" review.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on provisions within the "front line first" report.

The purpose of the "front line first" study is to identify areas where we can reduce the costs of support to our front-line forces so as to ensure that defence provision is properly concentrated on front-line operational effectiveness. That comprehensive and radical study is now well under way.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate early in the process the elements and units in the front line that are unlikely to be affected by the review and those that are more likely to be affected? [Interruption.]

Order. I should be obliged if the House would settle down. It is very difficult to hear hon. Members.

The instruction that has been given to those carrying out the study is that it would not be appropriate for them to consider any proposals that, if implemented, would reduce the fighting capability of our armed forces. I believe that that is the right criterion to apply to such a study.

While assessing operational effectiveness under "front line first", will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that putting extra tanks, helicopters and men into the field is worthless unless those forces are properly sustained by training, fuel and spare parts?

I do, indeed, accept that. It is important to ensure that our armed forces are not only well manned but well trained and well equipped. Only the combination of those three factors will enable them to be certain of winning any conflict in which they might be involved and of maintaining the high reputation that they deservedly have.

First, I sincerely wish the Secretary of State a much happier year in his job than he has had in the past few miserable years and I congratulate him on his low press profile over the recent recess. However, by what curious twist of logic does the Secretary of State feel it appropriate to conduct a formal review of the efficiency and administration of our armed forces when he has pointedly refused for the past three years to carry out a proper and thorough review of their commitments and strategic objectives? How can we possibly review our structures without knowing the strategy and commitments? Is it not clear that the Secretary of State's main priority during the review will be to identify Treasury-dictated budgetary savings rather than to provide for the defence of the realm?

The hon. Gentleman, as usual, fails to understand the purpose of the review. We are seeking to reduce unnecessary costs and to be able to use at least some of the savings to enhance the fighting capability of our armed forces. It is precisely for that reason that I was recently able to announce an increase in the field Army and the go-ahead for new tanks, support helicopters and mine hunters as indicated a few weeks ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest position in respect of British troops operating in former Yugoslavia.

An Army battalion group, currently 1 Coldstream Guards, is deployed on humanitarian aid and refugee escort duties. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy aircraft are engaged in the humanitarian airlift and other operations and Royal Navy assets are deployed in the Adriatic.

Is it not absolutely essential during these winter months that adequate supplies get through to the civilians in Bosnia? Is it not intolerable that anyone, including the Serb commanders, should hold up supplies which ought to be going to the men, women and childen who so desperately need aid? What are the international community and the British Government going to do to ensure that all the humanitarian aid supplies get through to the people who need them?

Without the efforts of the United Kingdom forces and others in the United Nations protection force, no aid would be getting through. We are doing our best, and saving hundreds of thousands of lives as a result. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right—we must continue all our efforts to get that aid where it should go.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a certain amount of confusion about the precise nature of the "back to basics" policy? Will he confirm that honesty is one of the "back to basics" values? If it is, why did the Conservatives promise at the last general election not to put up tax and then impose £10 per family per week?

Our concern as a Government is with good standards in education, strengthening the fight against crime and, not least, ensuring a sound economic foundation on which all other objectives must rest. Our policy on taxation and in all economic matters is directed towards that end and it is manifestly bringing about the growth that people want to see.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the barometers of the British economy is the housing industry? Does he therefore share my satisfaction —[Interruption.]

Order. It is good to start the new year in good humour, but I should like to hear the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).

Does my right hon. Friend therefore share my satisfaction with the figures revealed yesterday, which show that private sector housing starts are on the increase?

I do indeed share my hon. Friend's pleasure in those figures. Private sector housing starts increased significantly in November, as in the previous month. Indeed, in November they were the highest since October 1989, and 42 per cent. higher than a year earlier. That is very good news and it shows the benefits of the policies to which I referred a few moments ago.

Is it not now abundantly clear that "back to basics", a slogan which was devised to get the Prime Minister through the Tory party conference, has spectacularly backfired on a Government who are now in hopeless confusion and disarray about what it means, particularly when applied to themselves?

I have already made it clear, in answer to the first question asked of me this afternoon, that our concern is with raising standards in education, strengthen-ing the fight against crime and, above all, strengthening the British economy. Those are objectives which the British people support and want to see achieved, and they know that they would not get them from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the problem is that the current definitions are so markedly different from the moralistic speeches of Minister after Minister at the Tory party conference? Does he recollect the Home Secretary saying to the conference that the distinction between right and wrong had to be sharpened instead of blurred? Why is it all so different now?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was absolutely right to make that point in the context of the fight against crime, which the House will debate later today. The objectives of what the Government are seeking to bring about remain and will remain as I have stated them and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set them out at that conference.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not yet appreciate that what the British people dislike intensely is the hypocrisy of double standards which "back to basics" has now become? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us and the public why there should be one set of rules for the the people and another set of rules for Ministers and Tory Members of Parliament?

What I think that the British people most dislike is the hypocrisy of a party which talks like that and then opposes every move to raise educational standards and every move to fight crime, and which pursues policies which could only damage Britain's economy.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain continues to maintain a flexible and responsive approach to military action in Bosnia? Does he agree that, until recently, Britain has been entirely right to resist premature calls for air strikes in the region, which would have led to extreme danger for our troops on the ground who were sent there to police a United Nations ceasefire, not to take part in guerrilla warfare?

I can say that, after some very fruitful meetings in Brussels this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in speaking there, has made it clear that we will be drawing up plans to help UNPROFOR to bring in a Netherlands contingent to replace the Canadians in Srebrenica and has also agreed to examine how Tuzla airport can be opened, with the intention that it should serve as a conduit for humanitarian relief. My right hon. Friend has also made it clear that if it is necessary to use air power to achieve those objectives, we would be willing to do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the Leader of the House now think that morality is very important also in public life? Is he aware that, in the Forth valley enterprise area, thanks to the diligent investigation by the local paper, The Falkirk Herald, it has been revealed that £2 million in grants from the enterprise board has gone to people who sit on the board? In fact, just recently, the secretary of the board resigned after an investigation by Scottish Television. There are allegations of training grants to companies that had no trainees and allegations of the register of companies' interests being falsified, and there is still £50,000 missing. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that appointees who have a self interest to pursue will not look after the public interest and that running the country by quangos, as the Government have tried to do, will lead to corruption inevitably?

In view of some of the things that have emerged about, for example, Labour local authorities, I think that that is a curious charge for the hon. Gentleman to make, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will examine anything that needs to be examined in the light of that or any other event of that kind.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the Dun and Bradstreet report, which shows increased business confidence in trading conditions at the moment? Does he agree that that augurs well for the future of the British economy in the next 12 months?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The survey published today shows that United Kingdom businesses are more confident about trading conditions in the current quarter, with well over half forecasting higher profits and nearly a third expecting to take on more staff. That shows the benefits of the policy of low interest rates and low inflation which the Government have successfully been pursuing.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

I have been asked to reply.

I wish you, Madam Speaker, and the rest of the House, a happy new year. Will the Leader of the House make it a happy new year for the disabled miners who are at home and worried because of the lack of guarantees for the future of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, a worthwhile organisation which looks after them and their families? If the Leader of the House wants a moral crusade, I would name that one.

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes for the new year, which I much appreciate. With regard to the substantive thrust of his question, he will of course have an opportunity before long to raise that and any other point during discussions on the Coal Industry Bill. I will of course draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the remarks of Tom Donnett, a Liberal county councillor in Somerset, who has described villagers whose views he disapproves of as being no better than yids, nignogs, eyeties and Pakis? Does not my right hon. Friend find a curious distinction that the Liberal Democrat party, leader in his appearances in the House adopts a tone of self-righteous pomposity while harbouring people within his party whose views would not be tolerated in the National Front?

In line with the good wishes for the new year, I had better say that my hon. Friend might say that, but I cannot possibly comment. I understand that the remarks have been referred to the Commission for Racial Equality. Perhaps we shall see not only what the commission has to say, but in due course what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his party have to say.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister, in what will obviously be a review of his "back to basics" policy, to consider a "back to basics" in foreign policy? Does he agree that part of that should be a basic understanding that aggression should not be rewarded? Does he further agree that it is crucial that the siege of Sarajevo be lifted and that the Government call for immediate air strikes to take out the artillery surrounding that city?

Without for one moment accepting the suggestion in the first half of the hon. Lady's question, I think that the need with these policies is to get on and ensure that they are effective, which is what we seek to do. On the second part, with reference to Bosnia—the hon. Lady mentioned particularly Sarajevo—I referred earlier to another couple of issues: the position at Srebrenica and the position at the airport at Tuzla. I think that the hon. Lady would be well advised to read full reports of the understandings that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reached with our allies in Brussels today about further action in those areas.

Concentrating still on important matters, does my right hon. Friend welcome the improvement in the balance of trade figures announced yesterday?

rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I was caught out by my hon. Friend's unaccustomed brevity, but I am grateful both for his brevity and for the good point that he raised. I am delighted to see the improvement in the balance of trade of something like £500 million in October, with exports outside the European Community up by some 12 per cent. on a year ago. It is further convincing evidence of the success of our policies. I look forward, although without much expectation, to the Opposition congratulating not only British industry and British workers but the Government on the conditions that have helped to bring that about.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Government be demanding of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that he repay the £50,000 that he got out of his housing fiddle on the second council house in Westminster? How can the Government justify bailing out the firm owned by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) at £200,000 when thousands of firms in Britain have gone to the wall and millions of people have been made redundant? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman demand that the hon. Member for City of Chester foots the bill himself?

I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has said in recent days. I imagine that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) appreciates that the position of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is exactly the same as that which would arise with any other company which does not succeed. Neither the company nor my hon. Friend has been treated differently from any other company or any other individual in similar circumstances.