To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of 8th Battalion the Light Infantry.

The 8th Battalion the Light Infantry will begin to re-role as a national defence reconnaissance regiment in the Royal Armoured Corps from 1 April 1995. The battalion looks forward to its new role with enthusiasm.

Does the Minister accept that the 8th Battalion the Light Infantry is a direct descendant of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, which has a 200-year history in Yorkshire and which is one of the fundamental regiments ever formed in Yorkshire? Does he accept that the proposed change is not in the best interests of that Yorkshire regiment? Will he assure me that the cap badge will not change, and that the role of an infantry division will be maintained?

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the heirs and inheritors of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, one of the proudest regiments in the British Army. Indeed, many streets in Yorkshire are named after its Victoria Cross winners.

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have had one or two discussions on this matter in recent months. The regiment accepts the re-roling, but many of us would like its great tradition, together with the cap badge, to continue.

I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend for her vigorous lobbying of Ministers on behalf of the regiment. I assure her that the regiment will have every opportunity to ensure that it retains its battle honours and its important regimental distinctions, which, rightly, are the source of great pride and pleasure to all the people of Yorkshire.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the position on the future attack helicopter needs of the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

My Department is evaluating tenders to meet the Army's requirement for an attack helicopter. We hope to make a decision on the purchase of that equipment before the summer recess.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. He is well aware that many thousands of my constituents work at British Aerospace Warton, which is one of the bases that is heavily involved in the British Aerospace bid for the attack helicopter. I hope that he will be able to reassure my constituents that British Aerospace's bid will be seriously considered when future provision of RAF attack helicopters is considered, as it is obviously an excellent product.

I can give that assurance. Our four criteria in taking a decision about the attack helicopter are, first, whether the bid meets the operational requirements of the Army Air Corps; secondly, the cost—whether it represents good value for money; thirdly, the impact on the United Kingdom defence industrial base, including employment, for example, at British Aerospace; and, finally, the risks involved in further development.

As the question refers to helicopters for the RAF, will the Minister say whether progress has been made in ordering the utility helicopter for the RAF because it is now nearly a decade since the Government promised to buy it? Is the Minister aware that the job security of employees at Westland in Yeovil depends on his placing an order for the EH101?

That is well understood. We have made substantial progress in negotiations with Westland and Boeing and expect to make an announcement shortly. The importance of an indigenous UK helicopter manufacturing company is of direct relevance, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it plain that our preference is for a mixed fleet order, but not at any cost. We expect to reach a decision soon.

Most hon. Members will be reassured by my right hon. Friend's statement that the order will be decided not on price alone but on the quality of the product. May I make a plea that, if he is looking for a quality product and to ensure employment, he must look to Westland's involvement in an attack helicopter order, which would meet the requirements of the Army extremely well?

Westland's contribution to an order for one of the attack helicopter contenders—the Apache—would be relatively modest compared with the contribution that it would make, for example, to a support helicopter order. The programme for the Merlin version, which is for anti-submarine warfare, is going extremely well and Westland is to be congratulated on its achievements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will put in the Library copies of the advice that Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson received from those responsible for the maintenance of official residences in Her Majesty's Government in relation to his official residence.

I have already placed in the Library a full report on the outcome of investigations into expenditure on official service residences, including the last two residences occupied by Air Chief Marshal Wilson. I do not propose to publish any further documents.

Perhaps Sir Sandy Wilson has been a victim of the system.

There is no question of anyone being a victim of the system. All members of the services carry responsibility for their actions, including their judgment. These matters have been investigated fully and I can add nothing to what I have already said.

In reaching his decision, did my right hon. and learned Friend take into account the precedent that he would set in forcing that very senior officer to retire prematurely? Was he conscious of the fact that there were no official guidelines against which such expenditure could be judged, and that the Air Chief Marshal had not broken the Queen's regulations or, according to my right hon. and learned Friend, acted improperly? How did my right hon. and learned Friend compare the expenditure on Air house, Rheindahlen and Haymes Garth against the £700,000 spent on the Bois de Mai residence of the chairman of the military committee of NATO or the £400,000 spent on the residence of the Commander Allied Forces North West Europe in High Wycombe?

As my hon. Friend knows, the properties to which he referred were all the subject of an internal audit, which concluded that there was no cause for substantial concern, except with regard to certain Royal Air Force residences. In that light, further examination was made of those matters. Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson decided that he should seek early retirement and I do not disagree with his conclusion. The service that he has given the Royal Air Force, including the continuing service that he will give until he retires this July, will have been of a high order with regard to his operational responsibilities.

Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that the manner in which he scooted out of London on the morning of Sir Sandy Wilson's sacking, thus refusing to make a statement to the House, did neither his great office nor himself any credit? Having spent £100,000 of public money on a consultant's report, will he make the full report available to hon. Members in the House of Commons Library and confirm that Sir Sandy Wilson was not the chief budget holder for Haymes Garth?

Sir Sandy Wilson was not the chief budget holder for Haymes Garth. However, he was the chief budget holder, with full budgetary responsibility, for Air house—the house that he occupied previously, which also formed part of the investigations.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unworthy nature of that reply, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future role he envisages for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

NATO will remain essential to the defence and security needs of nations on both sides of the Atlantic.

Should there not be a de-emphasising of NATO and its military mentality and a concentration on improving political and economic co-operation with America and with the whole of Europe? Is it not the secret truth that NATO Ministers and generals still think in cold war terms and regard Russia as the enemy? Are we not missing the opportunity, presented by the ending of the cold war, to scrap nuclear weapons? This Sunday marks the 25th anniversary of the signing of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Should we not use that occasion to announce huge cuts in nuclear weapon stockpiles worldwide, including those in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman, in his usual engaging manner, shows that he totally misunderstands the relevance of NATO when he talks about reducing its military identity. NATO is a military defence alliance. That is its strength and that explains why it is the most successful defence alliance in the history of the world.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would help the defence of Europe immensely if France joined NATO's integrated military structure?

We are pleased that France has recently edged its way back towards fuller involvement in NATO. For example, the French Defence Minister attended last year's meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Seville. That represented a small step for mankind, but a great step for France. The French Government and the French people must now determine how much further along that road they wish to go. We will welcome any further integration of France into NATO that they deem appropriate.

May I ask the Secretary of State about NATO's current role, in particular in the former Yugoslavia? The United Nations has confirmed persistent reports of large transport aircraft operating in Bosnia. Are any of those aircraft from NATO countries and are any of them breaking the arms embargo?

We are aware of various reports that suggest that there might have been some breaches of the no-fly zone in Bosnia, but there is little hard evidence available of the kind to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. However, NATO continues to pay close attention to the matter and it will use the surveillance aircraft available to it to identify any breaches of the no-fly zone.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish a national monument in Northern Ireland to commemorate those service men and women who have lost their lives serving there.

The nation owes a great debt of gratitude to the security forces in Northern Ireland; this is already marked in different ways and there are no current plans to establish a national monument.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while peace would be a fitting memorial to the 500 service personnel who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland—and to that end the terrorists should surrender their arms immediately—would not the erection of a national monument in the Province serve as a lasting tribute to them? Furthermore, does he accept that any appeasement of the Irish Republican Army in pursuing a nationalist agenda would betray that sacrifice and would perhaps lead to the break up of the Union and the break out of further sectarian strife?

I agree very much with the feeling behind my hon. Friend's question. The main purpose of the armed forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the battle against terrorism over 25 years has been to ensure that Northern Ireland's constitutional status can never be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that they have been totally successful in that endeavour.

I welcome the Minister's tribute to those who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland, but as there is a move to remember the civilian bomb victims of the blitz in London and a national monument to the police who have died in keeping the peace, surely such a memorial could be erected in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Government could even pledge to maintain not simply the concept of consent, but the Union for which those men gave their lives.

I am very sensitive to the important points that the hon. Gentleman makes. There are a number of memorials across the Province: for example, the books of remembrance at St. Anne's cathedral in Belfast and the Garrison church in Lisburn. Any further memorials require sensitive consideration and we are open to any constructive proposals that would be welcome to all those concerned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on Gulf war syndrome.

We continue to investigate the allegations of Gulf war syndrome with scientific rigour, principally through a medical assessment programme that will be subject to independent clinical audit by the Royal College of Physicians. There remains no evidence that those who served in the Gulf conflict are suffering from a mystery illness.

Why has the Ministry been so half-hearted and slow in its response to the plight of Gulf war victims who report the appalling symptoms that we now call Gulf war syndrome? When they were called to serve their country, those service men and women were not slow and half-hearted but willing to lay down their lives. Why cannot the Minister and his Department give them the same consideration in their present plight?

The hon. Lady is rather overdoing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] She is rather overdoing it. As she knows, we approach the matter with a sympathetic and open mind. The soundest method of assessment of all such cases is individual medical examination. We have taken steps to invite all those who think that they are suffering from any illness to come forward for the most rigorous medical examination. Their expenses will be paid, and, if they need to travel, overnight accommodation will be provided for them. So far, only 240 potential claimants have registered their intention to come forward and 105 have been examined. To secure the confidence that the House should rightly have, an independent clinical audit of the work that has been undertaken will be passed to us by the Royal College of Physicians and we shall make it available to the House.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his considered and well-balanced approach to a difficult issue. Does he agree that the only way forward is a proper medical and scientific assessment of the reported symptoms? Does he further agree that the Ministry of Defence is very well-motivated to get behind the understandable emotion and fulfil its long and well-deserved tradition of being a caring and excellent employer?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose remarks have added weight, as he himself was in the place of honour. He is quite right to mark down the Ministry of Defence as an extremely caring and sympathetic employer. The health and welfare of our service men and women is, and always will be, of prime importance to us. I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that the matter will be approached with great care, great sympathy and an open mind.

Do the Government still believe that the pattern and prevalence of illnesses suffered by Gulf war veterans is no different from that experienced among the 18 to 40 age group of the general population?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, some 45,000 troops were deployed in the Gulf and, sadly, it would not be surprising if a number of years thereafter a number of them were suffering from illness of one sort or another. A number of the people who have approached us are ill. They have been examined and, as I have said, to date we have found absolutely no medical or scientific evidence to support the allegation of a specific disease linked to service in the Gulf. Similar research is being conducted in the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Canada and Norway but no link has been found. As I said, we shall continue to approach the matter in an open and sympathetic manner, and we should be grateful if all those who feel that they have been made ill by service in the Gulf would come forward for a medical examination, which we would then subject to clinical audit.

This is a very serious matter. I welcome my hon. Friend's reassurance that all cases are subject to a comprehensive medical examination. He may know that I had to endure these rather—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

It is just coming.

It should have come earlier.

It cometh like the wind.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend who is another of the hon. Members who served in the Gulf conflict. He is correct to say that the assessment at the time was that there was such a threat and it would have been criminally negligent if our soldiers and service men and women had not been provided with proper protection against it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the House's attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down has to conduct a study on the long-term health effects of its experiments on the people involved.

There has been no evidence over the past 40 years to suggest that service volunteers who have participated in studies at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have suffered any harm to their health. Therefore, we have no plans to conduct a study on the long-term health effects on such volunteers.

Is the Minister aware that a number of ex-service men, including my constituent, Mr. Harry Hogg, were subject to horrific experiments with biological and chemical substances at Porton Down during the second world war and subsequently? Will he agree personally to investigate Mr. Hogg's case as Porton Down is trying to deny that he was ever there? Will he further agree to demonstrate the caring nature of the Ministry of Defence, as alleged by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), by establishing an independent study into the long-term health effects and by considering means of compensating those affected?

I shall certainly look at the particular case. I am not familiar with it but, if the hon. Lady will write to me, I shall examine it specifically. About 200 service men a year volunteer at Porton Down to take part in experiments to test not only equipment to be used in war but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Armed Forces said, chemicals and medicines for use in the event of chemical and biological warfare.

As the alternative motto of the CBDE is "safety first" and every procedure is subjected to ethical assessment, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the hundreds of my constituents who work there, saving thousands of lives through their work?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and certainly join him in thanking and congratulating his constituents. I also thank the service men and women who volunteer to take part in experiments at Porton Down. They have helped to ensure the safety of our armed forces.

Does the Minister realise that his response to this question is as disappointing and mean as that of his fellow Minister in relation to Gulf war syndrome? When there are reports that volunteers at Porton Down have suffered from skin and eye cancer, paralysis, disorders of the ears, nose, kidneys and bladder, is the Minister really saying that it is all chance and spontaneous? Do not the Government owe it to those volunteers to ensure that there is a proper independent medical inquiry into what has happened to them? Those people volunteered not for money but to help their country and their fellow service people. Would not the best answer from the Minister be to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and set up that inquiry now?

The hon. Gentleman is falling below his normal charitable standards. I specifically agreed to look at the case that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) raised. There is no evidence [Interruption.] Perhaps it does not commend itself to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do pay attention to the facts presented. There is no evidence that any of those volunteers has suffered long-term damage to their health in the past four decades.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his decision on the locations of the new medical district hospital units.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to rationalise military hospitals.

There are no proposals to rationalise military hospitals further to the decision that I announced on 8 December last year to establish a single, tri-service core hospital with at least 375 beds in the United Kingdom at the current Royal Naval hospital at Haslar in Gosport. I expect to make an announcement shortly on the locations of the new Ministry of Defence hospital units.

I recognise the need to reduce the medical capacity of the services as a result of other changes that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have made in recent months, but I hope that he will take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the staff of Princess Alexandra hospital at Wroughton for their excellent work over many years not only in caring for RAF personnel but many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is in his place. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will bear in mind, when making his decision about the location of future MDHUs, that the presence of an MDHU in the Swindon area will make it that much easier for the Swindon and Marlborough health trust, which serves north-east Wiltshire, to continue to provide the same excellent service in the future?

I am happy to have the opportunity to confirm everything that my hon. Friend has said and to pay tribute to the robust and vigorous lobbying that was undertaken by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on behalf of the Princess Alexandra hospital at Wroughton. It is an outstanding hospital and has served our military personnel and the wider community very well indeed. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the changes are inevitable and are the result of slimming of the forces, and the requirement to deal with our medical requirements in an assessed operational way for the 1990s. I endorse his views about the Princess Margaret hospital in Swindon. I am not, I am afraid, yet in a position to give him a guarantee on that, but will let him know as soon as we come to a decision.

Is the Minister satisfied that, in a worst-case scenario—for example, a rapid withdrawal from Bosnia—medical resources would be available, bearing in mind the rapid cuts that have been made in medical services over the past three or four years?

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I am pleased to be able to give him an absolute assurance that resources would be available. Indeed, none of the alterations and cuts to the services has been made to do anything other than support the front line in all assessed operational scenarios for the 1990s. I am therefore happy to give him whatever undertaking he wishes in respect of a withdrawal from Bosnia should that be necessary.

When my hon. Friend considers the siting of MDHUs, will he bear in mind the possibility of siting one at Frimley Park hospital, which is a real centre of medical excellence in Surrey and is ideally suited because it is surrounded by a large number of service establishments?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who has been a doughty champion of Frimley hospital. I am afraid that we have not yet reached a conclusion. As soon as we do so—I note and am fully aware of the excellent facilities at Frimley Park hospital—we will report to the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role of RAF St. Athan and the maintenance of Tornado and other aircraft since 1983.

RAF St. Athan provides overhaul, repair and manufacturing facilities for fixed-wing aircraft of all three services, and many of their mechanical, structural and engine components. Currently, Tornado accounts for around 48 per cent. of RAF St. Athan's work.

Will the Minister confirm that work done at RAF St. Athan by the company Airwork has cost a minimum of £300 million so far in botched and damaged Tornados? Will the Ministry receive compensation from the Bricom group? Was anyone in the RAF or the Ministry directly responsible for seeing that the work was properly done, and will anyone lose his job or be admonished?

The hon. Gentleman's estimate of the amount involved is wildly inaccurate. We have not yet costed the amount, and I would not be able to give the hon. Gentleman the figure if we had, because we intend to take legal proceedings against Bricom in connection with the work done by Airwork.

In the context of the maintenance and updating of Tornado aircraft, when will the midlife update programme be complete? Will the Minister also tell me, either today or in writing, what plans the RAF has to give the Tornado aircraft a stand-off capability?

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked me about the F3 fighter aircraft, which are being repaired and maintained. My hon. Friend asks about the ground attack—the bomber version of the Tornado. I am happy to say that the midlife update programme is proceeding, is properly resourced and will extend the life of the aircraft for perhaps 15 or 20 years— at the end of which time we shall have to consider a future offensive aircraft. I hope very much that we shall be able to collaborate in part with, perhaps, the United States in the design and development of the aircraft.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how property improvements are authorised in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Within prescribed limits, authority to approve expenditure on maintenance and new construction is delegated to budget holders to exercise in accordance with the letter of delegation issued to top level budget holders by the accounting officer.

Is not the Secretary of State slightly ashamed about the fact that he threw away £100,000 that could have cured the deficiencies in two housing estates in my constituency, paying KPMG Peat Marwick to produce a report that he subsequently repressed? Is that not a typical Ministry of Defence cover-up?

On the contrary; the work done by KPMG Peat Marwick was of very high quality, and enabled us to bring a difficult matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the estates at Imphal barracks in York and Strensall barracks in my constituency need no improvement other than a reprieve for Strensall, which faces possible closure, and more use of the accommodation at Imphal? Will he bear in mind the concern of many people throughout Yorkshire, who want us to maintain those facilities and continue the great relationship that York has had with the Army for many years?

We greatly value York's relationship with the armed forces, and expect it to continue for many generations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the continuing cost of recruitment to the armed forces while people are being made redundant.

Recruitment to the armed forces has continued throughout the force restructuring exercise, "Options for Change", in order to maintain a balanced age and rank structure and to meet shortages in certain branches and trades.

I am not surprised that the Minister did not give the exact figure for the costs. In the last financial year, they amounted to £100 million for recruitment and £500 million for redundancy. Is it not ludicrous to have that imbalance? When will the Government stop this absurd waste of public money?

I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but, as usual, he is wrong on everything. It is not £100 million; it is £92 million. [interruption] I fully realise that £8 million here or there is nothing to the Labour party. Plainly, recruiting remains extremely important to retain the right mix of skills and expertise and a balanced age structure, without which the services would be unable to carry out their job.

In addition to the points that my hon. Friend has made, does he agree that, if recruitment were to stop, it would mean that the training establishments would be unable to maintain their proper efficiency, which demonstrates the ignorance behind the original question?

My hon. Friend is right. The question of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) was fatuous and betrayed a lack of knowledge of the position. As I have said, plainly we must retain a constant and steady inflow to ensure that we have a balanced aid structure and a balanced range of skills across the services. I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the service training centres.

Is it not amazing that, in other circumstances, when we discuss recruitment, for instance, of managers of privatised utilities, the Government tell us that the only way to recruit the right people is to pay huge wage increases? Why are the armed forces so different? Why, when we need ordinary soldiers and ratings, have the Government cut their remuneration by 15 per cent. in real terms but, when we are awash with generals and brigadiers, increased their salaries by 18 per cent. in real terms? Is it not the same old Tory story: more brass for the top brass and peanuts for the poor bloody infantry?

The hon. Gentleman has more front than Brighton beach. That is a disgraceful assertion. The Conservative Government have always accepted the recommendations of the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay. They are proud of their record on service pay.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the armed forces are essentially a young organisation, and that even those of us who have expressed reservations about defence cuts fully support the view that, although people leaving the forces must be generously treated, it is essential that we maintain an on-going recruiting programme, bringing young people into the forces? The Government are absolutely right on that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his endorsement. He is exactly right. This is all part of maintaining the skills and the broad range of age and experience that is so necessary to a professional army. My hon. Friend is probably aware that well over 30,000 personnel leave the services every year on completion of their engagements or because they have decided to take up civilian employment. Many of those people are under 30.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what options he is currently considering for the future use of the Royal Naval college, Greenwich.

We are considering a number of options for the future occupancy of the Royal Naval college at Greenwich, if, following consultation, we should decide to form a joint service command and staff college at Camberley. The defence options being examined are for the home for a restructured defence school of languages or for a tri-service chaplains school.

My hon. Friend will know that the Royal Air Force chaplains school at Amport house already provides an ideal setting for the Royal Navy as well as for the Royal Air Force. Could not the Royal Naval college at Greenwich be used as a tri-service cadet college, where cadets of all three services could learn military science, discipline and the traditions of each service, before going to their respective establishments?

My hon. Friend has asked a popular question and I am happy to assure him that we would not allow any proposal to go forward for Greenwich that was not entirely fitting for the future use of the Royal Naval college. I am delighted to confirm that Amport house remains very much in the frame. I hope that we will be able to reach a conclusion that I know will please him. In any event, he has until 10 March to ensure that his views are put on paper.

Rather than prejudging the outcome of the consultation supposedly taking place on the location for the new joint service command and staff college, will the Minister recognise that the figures published in the consultation paper are dubious and suspect and that there is a serious case for revising those figures and considering Greenwich as the best and most effective location for the college?

The hon. Gentleman is fighting his corner in a robust and vigorous fashion, as he should be. Today I signed a long letter to him which I hope sets out the answers to some of the questions that he has raised. The hon. Gentleman has asked to come to see me to discuss these matters and I shall be pleased to meet him and to hear what he has to say. I would like to straighten out one misapprehension: we have certainly not yet made up our mind and we shall not do so until we have considered all the representations and the consultation is complete.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the impact of rail privatisation on the economy of the Scottish highlands and islands.

The franchising director will consult on his draft passenger service requirement for ScotRail. I am confident that the outcome will improve the quality of service enjoyed by the passenger.

Given the Prime Minister's recent visit to Scotland, he will be aware of the widespread concern about the future of rail services, not least the impact that the withdrawal of sleeper services, motorail, the steam engine on the West Highland line, and so on will have on the tourist-oriented economy of the western highlands in particular. Given that degree of concern, will the Prime Minister agree to a meeting at the appropriate time to discuss this matter further?

As I said a moment ago, I believe strongly that rail privatisation will improve the service, not least because a privatised service will have access to new sources of funds to increase investment in the rail service.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that nearly three years ago he told the nation, "Vote Conservative on Thursday, and the recovery starts Friday"? [Interruption.] When will the recovery start for all those who have seen their real standard of living decline since then? When will it start for the people I saw in the Selly Oak jobcentre yesterday where skilled factory workers are being offered £150 a week, security guards are being offered £2.40 an hour and care assistants £2.25 an hour? When will they get the feel-good factor?

If the hon. Lady cares to look at the published figures, she will see that we moved back into growth almost immediately after the last general election, precisely as I had forecast. If she is concerned about what is happening to the economy, she might bear in mind that it is now growing at about 4 per cent. a year, unemployment has fallen by 400,000 in the last year alone, exports have hit record levels in nine out of the last 13 months, investment is rising, manufacturing productivity is rising and, for the first time since records began, the number of people in work in manufacturing industry is rising. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell her constituents that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech that he made in Glasgow on Friday night to a cross-section of the Scottish business community? Does he recall that his comments were widely welcomed? Is he aware that the Scottish business community feels that a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers will cost productive jobs in Scotland and threaten the Union?

I do, indeed, recall speaking to 1,000 Scottish business men in Glasgow on Friday. I am in no doubt that they believe that a tax-raising assembly in Scotland would not be in the interests of Scottish business, not be in the interests of Scottish prosperity and not be in the interests of future investment in Scotland. That is strongly my view. I believe that it was also theirs.

Does the Prime Minister share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads—[Interruption.] Does he share the anger—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members must not barrack from sedentary positions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads of privatised utilities—this time, the National Grid Company—and will he at last act to stop such abuses?

Yes, I do find these payments as distasteful as the right hon. Gentleman—as do, I dare say, many other people as well. Where they cannot be justified, I believe that they bring the system into disrepute. I believe that directors have a duty to consider that, and I hope that they will. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Greenbury committee is examining those matters. Its recommendations will be addressed, of course, to companies and to shareholders. When its recommendations are available, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that may require legislative back-up. [Interruption.]

Order. This is all very time consuming.

But, Madam Speaker, he has the golden share in this company. Why will not he then use it?

There are a wide number of issues to be addressed, not just this, and the right hon. Gentleman may find it interesting to examine what they are. First, we must address how best to promote complete and open disclosure of the remuneration of directors—that is necessary so that shareholders can have the full facts—and, secondly, how to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on the performance of the company, and not provided as windfall gains. I believe that that is rightly where the greatest public concern is now concentrated. I believe that that may require stricter criteria for the price at which the shares are issued and the circumstances in which they are exercised. All those matters will need to be examined.

For these privatised utilities, why will not the right hon. Gentleman use the golden share or give the regulator the power? Does he not realise that, until he acts to stop these abuses, he will be seen as a willing partner in a public scandal, where monopoly millionaires are paying themselves monopoly money?

People who have listened to these exchanges may suspect that the right hon. Gentleman had prepared that question before he had listened to the earlier answers. If he had listened to the earlier answers, he would have known that there was no point in asking that question.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over the weekend about decommissioning and the surrender of arms were as welcome as they were necessary? May I encourage the Government to stick to their word on that matter, otherwise the so-called choice that the people of Northern Ireland face will not be a real choice? It will be a choice subject to blackmail, intimidation and abandonment of a community that deserves our support and protection.

As my right hon. Friend will know, the community has had our support and protection, with a large number of troops there, for the past quarter of a century. I can tell my right hon. Friend and all right hon. and hon. Members in the House that those British troops will stay there to protect people in Northern Ireland for so long as it is necessary. My right hon. Friend need have no concern but that we will keep to the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

Has the Prime Minister made up his mind yet whether he agrees with his Chancellor that monetary union is not a threat to the nation state?

I shall be addressing in detail all the matters that relate to our European position, and the right policies for this country, tomorrow. I shall do that tomorrow, and the hon. Gentleman will then be in no doubt.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

Unless my right hon. Friend has even half a mind to pull Britain out of Europe, could he explain to the House, and more particularly to the fishermen of Britain, how else they are to recover their Dover soles?

I think that my hon. Friend will know, since she refers to the common fisheries policy, that there would be many parts of the seas from which British fishermen would be excluded were it not for the provisions of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend and the fishing industry may not like every aspect of that policy—I am aware that they do not—but if we were to cut ourselves adrift from Europe in the way that she suggests, not just the fishing industry but a very large part of the commerce and other interests of this country would be put at risk.

As the Prime Minister has already announced one U-turn in his policy, can he confirm or deny reports in today's papers that the Government have abandoned their policy with regard to rail safety with the abandonment of automatic train protection? There has been a firm commitment to ATP by the Government and previous Secretaries of State since 1985. Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny that it is still part of his Government's policy?

On these matters, of course, we act on the advice that we receive from the Health and Safety Commission, as we have frequently been advised to do by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have received some advice from the commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend consider that the Belgians have recently exercised border controls in a most effective manner in relation to alleged football hooligans? Will he ensure that he lobbies Belgium hard for support in the European Union so that we can maintain adequate border controls at Dover?

I welcome the action taken by the Belgian police to ensure that tonight's game passes off without incident. I hope that the only action will be on the pitch—not off it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that, about a year ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced an investigation into the impact of dividend payments on investment, but that was dropped after the intervention of Lord Hanson? Since then, investment as a proportion of gross domestic product in Britain has declined to 14.6 per cent., which is the lowest figure since the first quarter of 1955. Given that the increase in dividends since the Tories came to power is £22 billion, which is money that has been dragged away from investment, is it not time to resuscitate that investigation?

The hon. Gentleman would do better to see what is actually happening both to manufacturing industry and to wider investment. If he does that, he will see the growth in manufacturing industry and see that industries that were dead or dying are now strong again, and exporting. He will see that British Steel has just increased production at its Llanwern plant by 30 per cent. He will also see a motor industry which was on its knees which will be a net exporter of motor cars before too long, and he will find that this country exports fibre optics, cameras and a whole range of products that were not available some years ago, all as a result of fresh investment in this country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Chester unemployment has fallen yet again? It is down by 2 per cent. on last month, by 14 per cent. on last year and by 42 per cent on eight years ago. Does he recognise the fact that, as well as inflation being at its lowest level for a generation, in Chester inward investment is at record levels and year-on-year growth is up by 4 per cent., productivity is up by 6 per cent. and exports are up by 14 per cent? To what or to whom does he attribute that encouraging state of affairs?

I am indeed encouraged by those statistics, both for Chester and for the rest of the country. It is not simply the growth, or the drop in unemployment, that is welcome. Also welcome is the fact that there is a physical growth in the number of people in employment, as well as a significant drop in the number of people who have been unemployed for a long time. I believe that that development is set to continue, and I imagine that everyone will welcome that fact.