To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the future prospects of the British defence industry; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others.

Will my right hon. Friend promote the best interests of all sectors of the British defence industry, including those of missile manufacturing? Does he agree that defence jobs are more secure with the policies of this Government than with those of the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. From my own conversations with management and work forces, I can confirm that the defence industry knows well what its prospects would be if Labour ever got its hands on the defence budget.

Does the Minister realise the damage that is being done through uncertainty, speculation and rumour as a result of the Government's continued inability to make a decision on the EH101? Will he say today when that decision will be made? I plead with him, for goodness sake say something, because the uncertainty now risks killing jobs, undermining orders, threatening European co-operation and delaying Westland providing a piece of equipment that the Navy desperately needs to do its job.

The right hon. Gentleman, for constituency reasons, chooses to depict that problem in lurid colours. In doing so, he is being somewhat irresponsible because he knows that this is a highly important procurement decision in which a number of factors must be weighed carefully. As the right hon. Gentleman also knows, we are appointing a prime contractor. In the fullness of time, the results of the tender will be made known. It is not for me to accelerate that process, because all the data must be weighed carefully and I do not want to cut any corners.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the English Electric Valve company in my constituency is a world leader in the manufacture of third-generation image intensifiers? Does he agree that there is something inherently unfair in the fact that, although American companies can tender or compete for supplying the British armed forces with equipment, the EEV cannot compete in the American market to supply the Americans with image intensifiers because the American Government have stressed that non-American companies cannot take part in the tendering process? I should be extremely grateful if my right hon. Friend could look into the matter and try to persuade the American Government to have a more realistic and fair tendering policy.

My hon. Friend draws attention to an extremely important point. He says that the American Government "have stressed" that that cannot happen, but there is no hard and fast rule. From time to time, cases of United States arms procurement protectionism occur and I am always glad to have them drawn to my attention. I shall do my best to raise them in the appropriate quarters in Washington, if my hon. Friend will give me fuller details as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that, in contradistinction to the offensive remarks about the Opposition that were made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), 1 million skilled workers are engaged in defence work and that, although they understand the need to restructure the forces and for the "Options for Change" exercise, their trade union leaders are concerned that the outcome will bite deep into the core of our high-tech industries? What, then, of our future design teams and professional and highly skilled workers?

Defence spending is set to decline by only 6 per cent. over the next three years. That is no more serious an impact than that which many specialised industries suffer in a time of recession. Equally, I would not want to deny the validity of much that the hon. Gentleman says, because he has deep and sympathetic experience in this area. My hope and belief is that redundancies in highly skilled sectors will rapidly be absorbed in the civilian sector, particularly as the recession turns round and we move back to greater prosperity.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when redundancies are about to be announced at Ministry of Defence workplaces, hon. Members are informed of them in advance? Is he aware that I have received letters from trade unions at 35 Base Workshop, Old Dalby, in my constituency, saying that they were told about redundancies, yet the constituency hon. Member was not aware of them?

This is the first that I have heard of that. Had my hon. Friend written to me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State we would have tried to deal with the matter circumspectly. In so far as any discourtesy has been suffered or felt by my hon. Friend, I apologise to him.

In the past two years I have asked the Secretary of State about the Government's defence sales to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Even in yesterday's debate on the Army, Ministers denied selling arms and defence materials to Iraq. Now that we can prove—the circumstances are outlined in the Financial Times today—that International Military Services Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary responsible directly to the Secretary of State, has been selling arms to the Iraqis, will the Minister make a statement and apologise for misleading the House?

The House does not like Members to read from prepared matter at Question Time, but I hope that I shall be forgiven for doing so on this occasion. IMS was given a licence by the Ministry of Defence to market the design in 1979. A contract was signed in 1981 for the design and supervision of the construction, supply and installation of safety and monitoring equipment. The contract was completed in 1987, as there was a two-year delay in letting the construction contracts, which went to a South Korean firm. Originally, the facility was due to be finished in 1984, and the safety and monitoring equipment was shipped in 1983. All necessary Government approvals were obtained prior to IMS signing the contract in 1981.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards establishing a European rapid reaction force.

Western European Union Ministers met in Luxembourg on 27 June. Copies of the communiqué issued after their discussions have been placed in the Library of the House. The Ministers agreed to put work in hand on a future operational role for the WEU. The United Kingdom intends to make a positive contribution to all aspects of the work. One possibility would be the establishment of a European rapid reaction force.

With the effective ending of the Warsaw pact by the signing of the protocol in Prague yesterday, and with the grave events in the Balkans which threaten the security of the rest of Europe, it is natural that attention should be moving to the idea of a European rapid reaction force. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the justifiable interest of the European Community in stretching the discussion of security to defence would be best protected if the European rapid reaction force were based within the Western European Union, thereby providing a bridge and keeping the command structure under NATO?

We believe that the prime defence of Europe lies in the NATO alliance to which our forces are assigned. We see that there could be circumstances outside the NATO area where there could be value in European co-operation and where our forces—not separate but separable from NATO—could, perhaps in combination with other European countries, have a part to play in certain circumstances, and we are discussing that aspect in the WEU.

Would it be part of the task of a rapid reaction force to search out Iraqi nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha, Abu-Gharaib or wheresoever the Iraqis have taken nuclear facilities in Iraq? If so, would part of its task also be to try to monitor what has happened? Is it not incredible that we make such a fuss about carefully stored nuclear waste, but that no one has monitored the nuclear situation in Iraq after the bombing?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware of resolution 687. There seems to be clear evidence that Saddam Hussein is already in breach of it, because it requires him to disclose full information about his nuclear materials. We have made it absolutely clear that we intend to implement resolution 687, which involves urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, as appropriate, of all the items concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the rapid reaction corps concept, readiness is crucial and that any idea that parts of units committed to it, such as that of the 4th squadron in each tank regiment should be mothballed, would be fatal to the whole design? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that there would be considerable disquiet on both sides of the Chamber if cuts in generals, admirals and civil servants were prevented while cuts in our frontline forces went through?

On the first point, I have already made the distinction between separable and separate forces. I agree that one would not allocate one squadron in a regiment to the European rapid reaction force while the other remained in NATO. The concept of the European rapid reaction force is comparable to what happened in the Gulf. We transferred to the Gulf forces assigned to NATO, such as the 1st British Armoured Division. I see no concept of having separate forces or different bits of separate regiments. If my hon. Friend will watch this space, he will hear very shortly about our proposals for streamlining the Ministry of Defence, which will meet precisely the objectives that he has in mind.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is fitting and proper that the rapid reaction force should be placed under British command? Is it not a testimony to the expertise of our troops and the esteem in which they are held by our allies? If the rapid reaction force points to the future need for highly flexible and mobile troops, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to dispel newspaper reports which have spoken of the emasculation of the Parachute Regiment by the closure of its headquarters, one battalion and all the reserve battalions?

In the debate on the Army yesterday, my right hon. Friend made it clear that we would not comment on any regiments until I make a statement, which I hope to do before the House rises. I have already made it clear that I hope to publish the White Paper on defence estimates early next week. I hope to make a statement on the details of the Army restructuring before the summer recess.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of HMS Endurance.

HMS Endurance has entered her routine maintenance period on return from the Antarctic. She will have an extensive structural survey during her maintenance period. A decision on deployment this winter will depend on the results of that survey.

As one of several Members of this House who has had the pleasure and privilege of visiting the Falkland islands, may I say that any decision not to maintain or replace that vessel will send shock waves through the islands' population? Will my right hon. Friend, in his future deliberations on that subject, further consider the much heightened awareness of people in this country about developments in the south Atlantic generally and their interest in having the Antarctic region maintained in pristine condition?

I completely accept that at present the Endurance has a much wider responsibility than merely for the Falkland islands. As for the shockwaves, Falkland islanders are greatly reassured about their future defence interests by the massive investment that we have made in Mount Pleasant airport and by the ability that we have to reinforce at very short notice.

Although it is well recognised that the other vessels in the south Atlantic have a defence capacity far in excess of anything that Endurance might be able to provide, is it not a fact that the Royal Navy has to carry out quite a lot of scientific work and that that work can be done only by an ice-strengthened ship? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us not only that Endurance will be kept in service for some years to come, but that when it finally has to be withdrawn from service there will be a suitable replacement vessel both to carry out the scientific work and to offer a public demonstration that we will maintain the defence of the Falkland islands by keeping a vessel down there permanently?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the guarantee that he needs: we shall continue to defend the Falkland islands—our investment there is great. I accept that HMS Endurance has a certain value to the Royal Navy, but I am afraid that we shall have to wait and see how things pan out. The future of Endurance depends a great deal on the survey work being done on her at the moment.

Why is my right hon. and gallant Friend so coy about this matter? That is not a role that usually befits him and it is most uncharacteristic of him. Would it not be much better if the Government and the Ministry of Defence recognised that we had a long-term strategic interest in Antarctica and the Falkland island dependencies and that the balance of power round the Horn depends on our presence there?

I am trying to be as forthcoming as I can. The fact remains that a survey is being carried out on the ship and we shall have to wait for its results before we can say with any clarity what the ship's future will be.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will consider making enhanced payment to civilian employees at RAF St. Athan to prevent them from being recruited by competing employers.

The existing civil service pay system provides sufficient flexibility to enable pay rates to be adjusted to overcome local recruitment and retention problems. There is no evidence that any such adjustment is necessary at present in respect of the civilian employees at RAF St. Athan, and I cannot speculate about what may happen in the future.

I thank the Minister for that reply. As yet, there is not a problem at RAF St. Athan, but, given the pay differentials of up to 25 per cent. between the Ministry of Defence and civil aviation companies, there is a danger that when British Airways builds its unit at Cardiff-Wales airport there could be mass poaching of skilled precision engineers from RAF St. Athan. That will have serious defence implications. I hope, therefore, that the money is available should the air officer commanding maintenance unit call for special payments.

To make enhanced payments there must be clear evidence that existing rates are failing to attract adequate staff. There are no significant staff shortages at present and we have no problems with recruitment. Should the situation take a turn for the worse, however, we shall take the necessary action to maintain proper employment at St Athan.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the assistance given by his Department to Kurdish refugees.

The initial deployment of RAF Hercules and Chinooks played a major part in getting vital supplies to the refugees in their desperate plight. That assistance was then backed up by 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, who helped ensure the safe return of refugees from the mountains. Throughout, they have worked closely with the other coalition forces and the aid agencies in this remarkable achievement. There are at present about 1,200 United Kingdom personnel in northern Iraq and nearby in Turkey, providing reassurance to the Kurds. We are consulting our allies on a suitable security presence in the area to underline our continuing interest in preventing a recurrence of the previous persecution.

The Kurds of Iraq feel that they are being left unprotected. British troops may pull out too early. What is to be done about assisting the United Nations to pick up the role that allied troops have been playing, so that the United Nations can deploy the necessary forces and resources? Will the British Government see that the United Nations is helped in that way?

Many of the Kurds who have expressed such concern are alive only because of the action that saved the lives of hundreds of thousands. To my personal knowledge and from observation, those people would be dead if Operation Haven had not been launched. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer in which I said that we would consult our allies about a suitable security presence in the area. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also spelt out our criteria, which we expect to see established.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to allow troops to remain there until the United Nations has a force that is capable of guarding the secure areas where Kurdish refugees are staying?

We certainly look for a significant presence by the United Nations, but we would not rely on that alone. We are considering in what ways we can back that with a security presence in the area and effective warnings to Iraq that any renewed repression would meet the severest response. We want to see a continuing deterrent military presence in the region to back those warnings, and the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq. That is the strategy which was spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and it has wide support among our allies.

As Turkey wishes to join the European Community, will the Secretary of State, when he next meets his counterparts in Turkey, advise the Turkish Government that it would be helpful if the Kurds in Turkey were not persecuted, as they are at the moment?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all the relief efforts, which have resulted in the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives, owe a great deal to the support and help that we have had from the Turkish Government in connection with our bases. It would not have been possible to mount the rescue operation without the active support of the Turkish Government, to whom I pay tribute. That co-operation was given at a time when Turkish policemen and others were being shot by Kurdish terrorists.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the directorate general of quality assurance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the directorate general of quality assurance and the outcome of the study into relocating this to Portland.

We are continuing to examine, in the context of "Options for Change", exactly what technical services currently provided by the directorate general of defence quality assurance will be needed in future and how they might best be supplied.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the indecision in his Department since November has resulted in one of the five flagship sites on Teesside effectively being blighted? I urge my hon. Friend to bring his review forward as quickly as possible so that we can get on with an alternative development if necessary or with the development of the facility if he decides to send it to us.

I recognise that my hon. Friend is anxious for a decision. So am I. However, substantial sums of public money are at stake and it would be wrong to announce a decision until we have thoroughly concluded our studies.

I wonder whether the Ministry of Defence has got this quite right, because surely no other buyer would seek to put its quality assurance in a building that was separate from its other functions. Surely it would be far more sensible to locate geographically close to suppliers, users and research facilities—in Portland for instance.

There is a considerable overlap between our research establishments in the technologies of quality assurance. A very good centre is in Portland in my hon. Friend's constituency. As I have said, in view of the high expenditure that is envisaged for any move, we must finish our studies properly before reaching a decision on the future of DGDQA.

We are well aware that considerable sums of public money are involved in the decision. A letter from the National Audit Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) dated 19 June categorically states:

"A core project can be accommodated within the available finance."

Of course we shall take various circumstances into account, but under "Options for Change" our aim has to be to reduce the support areas within the Ministry of Defence in line with the armed services. This means that we have to look carefully at our plans to ensure that they are truly justified in the new circumstances.

Will the Minister spare a thought for the quality assurance staff at Woolwich, who have been operating under a cloud of continuing uncertainty for 15 years? How does he expect them to do a good job when they still do not know where they and their families will end up? Is not it time that the Government took a decision on this and, having taken it, stuck to it?

I am aware of the need to come to a decision on this important issue as soon as we can.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what implications his "Options for Change" review will have for the regimental system.

Even though numbers will reduce under "Options for Change", the Government have made it clear that they believe in, and will maintain, the regimental system.

My right hon. Friend has, rightly, not ruled out the possibility that some regiments and battalions may have to be disbanded. Does he agree that the criteria for that purpose should be not whether the battalion or regiment has an illustrious past or a name but rather how well it has recruited and retained its members? Will he consider the possibility that, if some battalions and regiments have to be disbanded, they could be transferred to the Territorial Army and the name retained for other use?

That possibility has been considered. The Army is pursuing this matter in consultations and I am sure that that is the right way to go about it. One of the most objectionable remarks made in the debate yesterday was that I should have intervened and decided, without consulting the Army or giving it the opportunity to determine this difficult change for itself. In the end, I have to take the responsibility and I shall have to stand at the Dispatch Box and justify the decisions reached. Therefore, it is far better for me to invite the Army to see whether it can arrive at the most satisfactory solution for the Army.

Ministerial guidelines say that the criteria used for the reduction in the infantry should take into consideration previous amalgamations and the geographical area for recruitment. Is the Minister aware that there will be great anger in Carlisle and throughout Cumbria if there is a move to disband the King's Own Royal Border Regiment? Will he give a guarantee that he will look carefully at keeping the county regiments, because there will be even greater anger if the two Yorkshire regiments of the King's Division are left unchanged?

I have no doubt that there will be great anger in the hon. Gentleman's constituency about possible changes to regiments. I wonder how much anger there would be if he or any of his constituents knew that his Front-Bench spokesmen have said that they see no further relevance in the regimental system.

When my right hon. Friend exercises his responsibility in making decisions on the future of the regimental system, will he bear in mind the fact that a central part of that system is the training of recruits and refresher training of non-commissioned officers and officers? The system that has been built up over many years is excellent, so will my right hon. Friend not discard it easily or lightly?

I give my hon. Friend the absolute undertaking, which I know is shared by the Army board and those involved in the exercise, that none of those decisions will be taken easily or lightly. These are serious issues. Almost all right hon. and hon. Members recognise that changes have to come, but they raise difficult issues which we shall consider seriously.

The Secretary of State will have had the opportunity to consider at leisure the speeches made in the debate yesterday, including, I hope, the most telling contribution from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Does the Secretary of State realise that he could remove a great deal of the anxiety that is felt about possible changes to regiments if he were to make it clear now that the ability to recruit and to retain will be regarded as the primary factors in determining whether regiments continue?

I am grateful for the thoughtful and constructive contribution from my predecessor in this office. He said, fairly, that when the Army board puts forward its proposals and I announce to the House whatever decisions are taken upon them, we must make clear the basis and the reasons for those proposals. The decisions will not be easy. There is great concern for the loyalty and all the other features of the regimental system that we cherish which will be at stake. However, I fully accept the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).

Given the importance of the ability to attract and retain good recruits, even though my right hon. Friend cannot comment, will he note that, with the sole exception of the Gurkhas, the Green Howards is the best-recruited regiment in the British Army and the last locally recruited regiment in the north-east and that its amalgamation or disbandment would be a serious blow to the recruiting ability of the Army?

My hon. Friend is joining others in giving a positive demonstration of why we believe, unlike Opposition Members, that there is much in the regimental system that is worth preserving and that we intend to keep.

Yesterday the nation recalled the battle of the Somme some 75 years ago. The event was particularly commemorated throughout Northern Ireland because of the sacrifices of Ulster people and southern Irish people, both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those great traditions are retained by maintaining the Royal Irish Rangers?

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that I shall not comment on individual regiments, but I understand why he raises that point. As he will know, I have personal experience of the excellent work and traditions of that regiment.

My right hon. Friend is entirely right to stress the importance of consultation with the Army and taking the onus for the difficult decisions on the Army; but at the end of the day, political decisions will have to be made and when he as Secretary of State makes those decisions, will he bear it in mind that the large regiments, particularly the Queen's and the Anglian regiments, are the result of amalgamations in past years and that they must remain as viable regiments in the future?

My hon. Friend puts well one of the concerns that I know are felt by many regiments that have already faced amalgamation, lost their traditional names and gone forward to establish a considerable esprit de corps and reputation of their own. I understand that point very well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow of 21 May, Official Report, column 456, if he is in a position to outline the steps he proposes to take in order to deal with the delays in the explosive handling jetty construction programme; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 21 May—that the explosives handling jetty construction programme has been subject to some delay and we are currently examining what further steps are necessary in order to maintain the programme.

It is more than three years since I first criticised the consultants, Rendel, Palmer and Tritton, for their unwise recommendation concerning the use of concrete instead of steel for the construction of the jetty. Is not it the case that because of the use of concrete the cost of the jetty has risen from £98 million to £141 million and it will not now be completed until 1993–94? Is not that nothing short of a scandal?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in the project. It is true that the whole apparatus will have to be strengthened more than was originally envisaged; however, I do not know that that can be blamed on the use of concrete rather than steel. We are now taking all possible measures to rectify the problems and to ensure that the entire explosives jetty comes on stream in time for our Trident boats.

Has not the project almost careered out of control because of the 56 design changes that have been made? I have been contacted by contractors in my constituency who are owed millions of pounds, while at the same time they are being chased by the Treasury and others for VAT payments. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will contact other Departments to ensure that that stops? More important, will he investigate what I said in last Thursday's Royal Navy debate about sub-contractors, so that their affairs can then be put in order?

The project has certainly not "careered out of control". As the hon. Gentleman says, changes have been made in the design contract; as I said, we are now trying to rectify the position. If sub-contractors have individual problems relating to payment, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would write to me. We can then investigate them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current number of ships and submarines in service with the Royal Navy.

The Royal Navy currently has three aircraft carriers, an escort fleet of around 50 destroyers and frigates which is being reduced to around 40, two assault ships and other specialist amphibious shipping, and a substantial flotilla of smaller warships. In addition to the four Polaris boats, we currently have 14 nuclear-powered submarines and seven diesel electric submarines.

Does the Minister accept that we are witnessing a continued decline in the number of naval vessels? Can he tell us how many naval bases we shall require and whether Rosyth will continue to be among their number?

The House should be reminded that, in 1989 and 1990, the Labour party conference voted to cut British defence spending by £9 billion a year, or over a third of the current defence budget. The brutal truth is that that would lead not to tenders for the order for three frigates—which we have just achieved—but to the destruction of most of the Navy and of hundreds of thousands of jobs in naval bases, industry and elsewhere.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be a continuing need for first-line technology in the Royal Navy and that that will require an ongoing building programme? Does he take on board the fact that it is essential for the shipbuilding industry to have some idea of the number of ships likely to be ordered over the next five to 10 years?

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. I am certain that Swan Hunter will produce an impressive tender for the three new frigates.

Will the Minister consider the establishment levels required on ships and submarines and, in particular, the deployment of Wrens on submarines, so that the skills for which they have been trained can be fully utilised? Women must have equal opportunities; if they wish to serve on submarines, the necessary arrangements should be made without delay.

As I said last Thursday, we are studying that possibility.

Many of us think that the fleet is already being cut to the bone without any further reductions. How many of the ships that are currently in service can go to sea at present and are not in the process of being refitted or repaired?

As I said, our policy is to order new ships to replace the older ones and thus to have a more effective Navy. I remind the House that, should Labour's plans ever be implemented, the effect on our equipment and defence budget would be catastrophic.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the death in the Falkland islands of Private Barry Hemingway.

I very much regret the sad death of Private Hemingway, but I am sorry that there is nothing that I can add to what has already been made known to the hon. Gentleman in his correspondence with my Department.

Following the tragic death of Private Barry Hemingway in a hospital in Montevideo from a virus developed as a result of diving in the Falklands, his family are at a loss because they have asked several questions but the answers are still outstanding. His mother was told on 8 August last year to be ready to fly out to her son, but that failed. She asked for more information and was told that it was not available because the satellite had broken down. People in Germany were made aware of her son's death before she was.

I am sorry if some of the hon. Gentleman's questions have not yet been answered. The provision to fly Mrs. Hemingway to see her son was on the basis that he was recovering from the original viral pneumonia that was diagnosed. It was only subsequently that his condition deteriorated and he had a cardio-respiratory arrest, which, tragically, killed him. I shall look again at the correspondence that we have had with the hon. Gentleman and answer any questions that have not yet been answered. Somebody will certainly visit Mrs. Hemingway.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the prospectuses for PowerGen and other privatised industries say that Her Majesty's Government do not expect to use their shareholding to vote on resolutions before the annual general meetings of those companies, but—this is the important point—that they reserve the right to do so? Will the Prime Minister, for once, act decisively, do as he did in the case of the chairmen of the banks and call in the chairmen and chief executives of all the privatised industries and make it clear to them that he will use the power given to him in the prospectus to intervene and stop the obscene salary increases that they are granting to themselves—or is this yet another example of all talk, all dither and no action?

I have made clear my view on the large increases on a number of occasions. I have also made it clear that the freedom given in the prospectus is not to be used in that fashion. The hon. Gentleman has been told that before and I reiterate it now.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to look into the effect on the employment of women of implementing the provisions in the social charter which relate to part-time work? Will not the social charter, which is fully supported by the Labour party, destroy job opportunities for women and restrict the flexibility of part-time work from which so many women benefit?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are able to support parts of the social charter, but the draft directions on part-time work would add substantially to the cost to British industry and, in so doing, cost the jobs of many people.

Is the Prime Minister still certain that, as he promised just two weeks ago, Britain will come out of recession in the second half of this year?

Yes, I still believe that we will see the economy move out of recession during the second half of this year. That view is echoed by a number of independent commentators and I see no reason to revise our previous forecasts.

The engineering employers, steel makers, car manufacturers and retailers are all telling the Government in clear terms that the serious losses of jobs, output and capacity will continue for the rest of this year and even into 1992 and beyond. What evidence does the Prime Minister have to demonstrate that those people, who certainly live in the real world, are wrong?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the latest CBI survey is precisely in line with the Red Book forecasts, which show that the economy will come out of recession in the second half of this year. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the G7 Finance Ministers agreed that the world economy was moving out of recession and back into growth. The impact of that will certainly assist our recovery in the second half of this year.

As for the forecasts of recovery from the world recession, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which other major industrial country has had a zero-minus-growth rate this year—[Interruption.] Under the policies of this Government—[Interruption.]

Order. Interruptions take a lot of time.

Under the policies of this Government, a zero growth rate would be an improvement.

As for the long-term strength of British industry, the right hon. Gentleman should read the recent comment by the director general of the CBI. He said:

"Virtually everything associated with our manufacturing base is better today than it was in the so-called 'golden era"'

My right hon. Friend will doubtless have had reported to him the serious news that the Japanese research and development total exceeded £9 billion for the first time last month. Of that sum, £1·5 billion is spent by the five largest semiconductor firms in Japan, exceeding the total research and development expenditure on semiconductors of the United States and western Europe. Had this matter been considered by the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, which my right hon. Friend chairs? If it has, does that committee share the views of the congressional committee on semiconductor dependency about the serious implications that that has for the defence and the industrial base of the western world?

My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that the huge research and development in the private sector has brought about the remarkable improvement in Japanese productivity in recent years. I shall chair a meeting of ACOST in the near future and I expect that that is one of the matters that we shall discuss.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that 16-year-olds on youth training have had their allowance frozen at £29·50 for several years and that, had their allowance risen since 1978 in line with average earnings, it would be £68·60 today? How does the Prime Minister think that those youngsters feel when they again read reports in the press that the heads of newly privatised industries such as PowerGen are awarding themselves pay rises of up to 163 per cent? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that those youngsters are worth so much less than Mr. Wallis?

As I said a few moments ago, I have made my opinion on these large increases perfectly clear. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have a more substantial employment package for young people than this country has ever had and it was added to just a fortnight ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the benefits accruing from a single currency in the European Community to the United Kingdom and other European Community countries either now or in the future.

Theoretically, a single currency within a single trading area can save industry the risks and costs of exchange rate transactions. It also saves ordinary travellers cost and inconvenience. Of course, all those advantages apply to a common currency such as that which the United Kingdom has proposed.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Was he in the Chamber last week to hear the critical but interesting observation that a federal state bears three distinguishing marks? One of those marks is the existence of a single currency and of a central bank. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sentiments behind that observation, made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), fly in the face of the Labour party's policy on Europe?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the Labour party is split on the question of Europe.

If the Prime Minister is saying that he agrees that a single currency is acceptable in principle, is not it also logical that a European central bank should control European-wide interest rates?

What I have said repeatedly about a single currency is that if it is market driven and if it is required, it is acceptable to us in principle. However, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say yesterday, we have maintained our reserve on the prescriptive single currency which is at present before the Community.

With my right hon. Friend's successful Luxembourg conference behind him, will he reject any new proposals to interfere with the Government's right to tax, to spend and to fix interest rates, as otherwise the non-imposition of a single currency could be but a hollow victory?

We are still at the very early stage of negotiations on economic and monetary union. I have already made it clear that I am as jealous as any other hon. Member of the rights of the House.

Is the Prime Minister aware that last Friday I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what studies had been made into the benefits for the United Kingdom of economic and monetary union? He answered by referring in column 541 to a written answer that he had given to me on 7 December at column 216. Both answers showed that no study had been made of the benefits. As the First Lord of the Treasury, will the Prime Minister tell us why that is so?

I set out in my original answer to my hon. Friend a few moments ago what the theoretical advantages of a single currency would be. The hon. Gentleman may care to read that answer.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the impact on income tax of a massive increase in public spending? Will he in particular say whether he has received any detailed written response to the analysis of the Labour party's programme which was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about a fortnight ago?

My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. I can confirm that I have received no such written response. The Opposition are remarkably coy about their spending plans. These days they set great store by the Financial Times, but, as that newspaper said recently:

"Any Labour Government would face clear choices: either unsustainable borrowing, or significantly higher taxation, or a great many disappointed hopes for higher public spending"—

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

In view of the Government-inspired vendetta against the miners and their union, which is now in disrepute, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we are not on the verge of another scandal? As the Government have authorised Rothschild bank, Touche Ross and Geoffrey Chancer to advise the Government on the privatisation of the coal industry, will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that the £6.5 billion miners pension fund will not be used as bait to sell off our coal industry?

There is no vendetta against the miners. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to Question Time a few days ago, he would have heard of the number of miners in Nottinghamshire, for example, who now earn well over £20,000 a year, so little is the vendetta of the Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

May I refer my right hon. Friend to my ten-minute Bill on 29 June 1988, at column 399 of the Official Report, when I proposed financial penalties on parents of perpetual truants? In the process of introducing the Bill, I referred to the 1985 Home Office report on parental supervision and delinquency. Has not the case been proved that if parents are careless of the whereabouts of their children, the children are more likely to offend? Is not it high time that we tightened up the rules on truancy? As my old friend, ex-prison governor and Isle of Wight broadcaster C. A. Joyce used to say, "I never met a criminal from a loving and caring home."

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is vital that parents fulfil their duty to secure their children's education. As my hon. Friend will know, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, the maximum fine for the parents of truants will rise to £1,000. We are very concerned to bring an end to truancy and, through that and other policies, we will seek to do so.