To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British forces' deployments in Bosnia. [25091]

The reinforcement of the British contingent in Bosnia is continuing with the deployment of some 1,000 additional personnel, including two artillery batteries and an armoured engineer squadron. In addition, we have offered 24 Airmobile Brigade to the United Nations as part of the rapid reaction force.

As the force leaves for Bosnia it takes with it from the House not only our concern but our pride in its professionalism. Does not its dispatch speak louder than words in sending the message that the United Nations will not give way to blackmail? And is not it significant that yet again Britain is giving the lead?

My hon. Friend is entitled to make those remarks. The Bosnian Serb leadership would do well to reflect on the fact that the taking of hostages has not only resulted in international contempt but has had the direct consequence of the dispatch of what in due course will be two additional brigades to protect the United Nations force. That justifies my hon. Friend's comments.

Why does not the Secretary of State have the guts to admit that sending that force is all about ensuring that it brings back the thousands of other troops who are already there? The tactic is withdrawal. The Government want to sound macho, but the truth is that they will pull the soldiers out.

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is our belief —and, I think, a view shared on both sides of the House —that the United Nations force continues to do important and valuable work in Bosnia. It is highly desirable that it should continue that, and the purpose of sending the additional forces is to provide those troops with the protection necessary to achieve that objective.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that sending even more forces will not necessarily improve the situation or the protection of our troops already in Bosnia, unless we alter the rules of engagement? Does he know whether the United Nations will change the instructions that it gives to the forces in Bosnia under its control, so that our troops can more effectively defend themselves against actions such as those that the Serbs have taken in recent weeks?

For obvious operational reasons it has never been our practice to comment on the detail of the rules of engagement. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that of course we are determined to ensure that our forces have available to them whatever will be required to maximise their protection. If ever that were believed to require a change in the rules of engagement we would not hesitate to agree to one on that basis.

In view of the difficulties experienced in the past with the dual key, especially in connection with NATO air strikes, may I ask the Secretary of State about the command and control of the additional forces to be sent? Whose authority does General Rupert Smith have if he wishes to deploy the additional forces, and according to what criteria will he do so? In particular, whose authority would he require if he wished to raise the siege of Sarajevo?

The additional forces being sent to Bosnia, both British forces and those from other countries, will come under the authority of the United Nations and therefore under both General Smith and General Janvier, as the two UN force commanders in the field. The use of those forces is a matter for the discretion of the UN commanders, but it must be consistent with the terms of the mandate laid down by the Security Council.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be widespread support for his robust statements this afternoon, especially in answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? What is the latest position regarding the hostages, and has Mr. Karadzic been told that we remain absolutely resolute in our demand that they be released?

The House will be aware that a significant number of hostages were released a couple of days ago. Strong indications have emerged this morning that there may be a further release of hostages during the afternoon, but we must wait and see. The United Kingdom Government will not relax their pressure by one iota until every single UN hostage has been released safe and in good health.

The whole House was relieved to hear that some hostages had been released, and we are hopeful that we will get some good news later today. We share the Government's view, and we will not satisfied until every single hostage has been released without any conditions whatsoever. While I am not asking the Secretary of State for precise details, will he explain his strategic view to ensure that British troops are not put in a position in the future in which they can be taken hostage?

We indicated in an announcement a week or so ago that we believed that there was a powerful case for a concentration of the UN presence in Bosnia. That is particularly important with regard to the exposed position of UN military observers, and it also has implications for the difficult task faced by those soldiers —not British —who are involved in the weapons control centres. It is also relevant to the future of the enclaves and to the possibility of supplying the UN forces in the enclaves with the fuel and food which are crucial to their continuing presence and their ability to carry out the role for which they were sent.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the robust stand made by the Government and by the Prime Minister on Bosnia deserves the admiration and support of the whole country? Is he aware that they are certainly enjoying that support in my constituency in Lincolnshire? Will he again state unequivocally that, whatever happens in this or any other context, the Government will never give in to threats or blackmail?

The public expect, and are entitled to expect, that no British Government would respond to a hostage situation by making concessions to those responsible for the taking of hostages. We have shown in the past that that is a fundamental British view which remains in the present circumstances.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with local authorities in the last year about changes to the size of the defence industry. [25094]

We seek to involve local authorities in early notification of any change to defence requirements for land and buildings and seek their help in finding alternative use when no longer required.

Does the Minister agree that local authorities are the key to planning economic activities at some disused military bases? Will he address his mind to the possibility of linking local authorities with plans to utilise currently vacant Ministry of Defence houses and other accommodation to help provide that accommodation for communal civic use? Do not some of the examples from the United States provide models for the MOD to follow?

I am not sure about the experiences in the United States, which have been mixed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence should seek to co-operate with local authorities, trade unions and other Government Departments through the regional offices to make sure that there is prompt action to find alternative uses for land and buildings which are no longer needed. We need to reduce the stock of empty married quarters, and we will work with local authorities to achieve that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is eager anticipation within the Plymouth travel-to-work area that an early decision will be made about the release of land currently occupied by the Royal Naval college at Manadon, and that the beneficiary will be the University of Plymouth?

I cannot confirm who the beneficiary will be, but I agree with my hon. Friend that further or higher education use for the site would make a great deal of sense and would be welcomed in Plymouth.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the amount of procurement fraud committed against his Department in the last five years; and what steps he has taken to limit this. [25095]

In the last five years identified procurement fraud was approximately £1.8 million, most of which relates to the Foxley case. The recent report by the National Audit Office recorded that my Department had made good progress in its efforts to reduce the risk of fraud in defence procurement by measures such as more and better training of staff.

Bearing in mind the concerns expressed by the National Audit Office, can the Minister confirm that all the corrupt funds in the Gordon Foxley case have been identified? Despite his assurances about the response of the Department, is he entirely sure that the MOD is assiduously learning the lessons of the Gordon Foxley case to prevent a repeat of the financial waste, the damage to employment and the long-term damage to Britain's defence industry which have been the results of that case?

I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that we have traced all the funds, partly because of the nature of banking laws and regulations in Switzerland. Our present estimate is £1.5 million but the sums may be much more —possibly as much as twice that amount. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise figures, as it is far too early.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it sticks in the gullet of most taxpayers that, having short-changed us as an employee, Mr. Gordon Foxley then proceeded to get £160,000 in legal aid? Is not something wrong somewhere?

That is not a matter for me, but the sentiments of many in the House would probably be the same as those of my hon. Friend.

How does the Minister justify rewarding companies that have perpetrated fraud? How does he justify awarding the M107 shell contract to Simmel, a company that was involved in the Foxley-Taylor fraud scandal and which is co-owned with Borletti, which was a major player in that fraud? Does the Minister understand the anger among British workers who have lost their jobs because foreign firms have fraudulently bribed MOD officials and, as a result, are now out of work while those same companies are being given contracts?

The Ministry of Defence and the Procurement Executive in particular are extremely annoyed at the actions of the three European companies and we have taken action against them: first, to recover the moneys paid in bribes; and, secondly, to suspend procurement decisions with those three companies for a time. But because the management involved in the Foxley case has now left the companies, it is not in the interests of the taxpayer to ban dealings with those companies for ever.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-service women are affected by the recent industrial tribunal decision on voluntary redundancy. [25096]

In all, 54 women who were made redundant under the third tranche of the Army redundancy scheme received special capital payments which were lower than those of their male counterparts.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I was pleased to see, in recent answers to parliamentary questions tabled by me, the Ministry's commitment to equal opportunities. Will the Minister explain why his Department seems to be so terrible at carrying them out? Why must we see the Ministry being dragged before the courts time and again over the dismissal of women who have become pregnant, for example, and in cases such as this? When will the Ministry undertake a proper review and ensure that discrimination against women is wiped out from its administration so that we can be proud of an equal opportunities policy rather than regard it as just a sop?

As usual from the Opposition, the hon. Lady presents a travesty of the position in the armed forces, which is a shining example of equal opportunity. There is not a branch of the services in which women do not undertake the most significant, responsible and valuable role. Where discrimination exists, it will be dealt with. In this case, we believed that what we were doing was fair and not discriminatory. The court has ruled against us and we are moving to put the matter right. But the picture portrayed by the hon. Lady is a travesty which will cause great offence to all those women who serve so honourably and well, and with such distinction, in our armed forces.

Although I congratulate my hon. Friend on ensuring that women have full opportunity for fruitful careers in the armed forces, has not subordination of British law to European by Her Majesty's Government's application to the armed forces of the European Union equal opportunities directive cost the British taxpayer £50 million in compensation for ex-service women, who have been dismissed on the ground of pregnancy? Will he ensure that that precedent is not followed in the case of homosexuals in the armed forces?

For a start, I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend's prejudices. Plainly, we are a proper equal opportunities employer —not in the politically correct sense —because we value the services that those people have to offer in the same way as we value all the members of the armed forces. We will respect, continue to respect and always have respected the judgments of the laws of the land.

Perhaps the Minister can help me about discrimination against women in the armed forces. Will he examine the policy that dictates that women serving overseas are always posted back to the United Kingdom on their return to service from maternity leave? Often that policy has the effect of splitting the family, because the husband is normally on an overseas posting. The Minister professes to be in favour of equal opportunities, so when will he stop presiding over policies that blatantly disregard and discriminate against women?

Sometimes the hon. Gentleman has a confusion about priorities in defence. He should understand that the services take their responsibility extremely seriously. If there is a problem, I shall have it investigated, but let us not try to pretend that the hon. Gentleman raises such cases for any other reason than to curry favour. It is absolutely idiotic stuff. To try to portray the services as not being in favour of equal opportunities across the board is fatuous nonsense.

Further to the question from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), does my hon. Friend agree that the people of this country demand that the armed forces are capable of defending the country and that they are not interested in all the politically correct claptrap we hear from the Opposition?

My hon. Friend, who has considerable and high quality experience as a soldier, speaks the truth and all those sensible ordinary people in the country know it to be the truth. They value our armed services for what they are —not as a political puppet, as the Labour party tries to use them.

Although I understand that an equal opportunities programme operates within the armed services, does the Minister accept that some form of discrimination exists when soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment are involuntarily discharged? Some of them should be discharged because they are suffering from medical conditions. The failure to do that means that the future livelihoods of those soldiers are being endangered because they have no medical discharge from the Army.

I do not know the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman makes, but if he cares to let me have the details, I shall have them investigated at once.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the efficiency gains arising from the defence costs study process in his Department. (25097]

The defence costs study was a great success. We now estimate that the measures arising from or related to the DCS will result in annual savings in excess of £1 billion by the end of the decade.

How can the Minister claim success in reducing inefficiency when his Department continues to waste public money hand over fist; for example, £2 billion overspent on the Eurofighter project; £800 million overspent on the Trident works programme and £7 billion wasted in total in the past two years? Is it not a national scandal that financial incompetence and mismanagement continue to be the order of the day in his Department when defence jobs and defence budgets are being cut?

If the Labour party wants to conduct a campaign on the basis of waste in the Ministry of Defence, it really should do its homework a little better than it has.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the savings that have been achieved are substantial, and that any large organisation —which is what the Ministry of Defence is —can always make savings and improve efficiency? However, would it be right to say that much of the saving has been achieved because of the reductions, and that if we are considering, as we may well in future, enlarging, for example, the volunteer reserves and the cadet force, it may be wise not to reduce their structures and command situations until the decisions on expansion, if any, are taken?

We have borne those considerations very much in mind in the decisions that we have announced with regard to the Territorial Army, the other reserve forces and the cadet forces, which are being maintained at their present levels. I can also tell my hon. Friend that what was unique about the "Front Line First" study was that we excluded, from the beginning of that consideration, any proposals the effect of which might be to reduce the operational effectiveness of our armed forces.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the terms and conditions of the employees of Devonport dockyard will remain the same after the privatisation of Her Majesty's royal dockyards. [25100]

That is a matter for Devonport Royal Dockyard plc, its employees and their representatives.

Does the Minister recall his Department's repeated assurances to the employees of Devonport dockyard, in answers to Members of Parliament and in a written answer to me on 23 May 1995, that terms and conditions would not be changed without the prior consent of the work force? Does he not understand the anxiety and sense of betrayal of the work force —people who have served the country loyally and long —now that they have heard that, contrary to the documents of the invitation for tender, the terms and conditions can now be changed?

The position on accrued benefits, either for redundancy payments or pensions, is of course safeguarded. Future accruals of such rights for future service are a matter for proper negotiation between the employer and the trustees, for example, of the pension scheme, and the employees and their representatives as far as the redundancy scheme is concerned. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in preserving the interests of those who work at Plymouth, Devonport, he should be distancing himself from the 58 Labour Members who want to scrap Trident.

Is not the fate of Devonport and Rosyth typical of the Government's privatisation programme —millions of pounds wasted on consultants' fees in preparing for privatisation, job insecurity for those working in the dockyards who have served the country well for so long and now doubts about the defence capability of the Government's proposals?

The Government side of the House proceeds on a principle very different from that on which the hon. Gentleman proceeds; the defence industry is there to provide the right equipment and the right service for the armed forces of the country, not to provide employment, either in Devonport or in Rosyth.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of Chinese military ambitions in the Pacific region; and if he will make a statement. [25101]

China has long-standing territorial claims in the Asia Pacific region and significant military forces, which are being modernised. We hope that all territorial disputes in the region can be settled amicably, and without resort to force.

Is the Secretary of State aware that China is rearming itself at a speed not witnessed since the German and Italian rearmaments of the 1930s? Is he further aware that, in the past two or three weeks, China has tested nuclear weapons in defiance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and tested intercontinental ballistic missiles which can be launched from lorries? Is he further aware that the Chinese navy is transforming itself from a coastal defence fleet into a blue water fleet and is actually involved in military engagements, many hundreds of miles from the China coast? That action has been taken by a non-democratic, totalitarian power which is seriously destabilising Asia. What are Britain's short, medium and long-term policies with regard to that new threat to the world?

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, in the time available, I am unable to give a comprehensive answer to what is a very reasonable question. He is certainly correct to emphasise that China is expanding its military potential very substantially. We have noted particularly the testing of the intercontinental ballistic missile which we understand could have a range in excess of 6,500 km and thus would be able to target western Europe in due course. The matter clearly justifies serious attention in the months ahead.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the last six months in respect of his Department's empty housing stock. [25102]

My Department has received numerous representations from hon. Members and from other interested parties about empty housing.

Does the Minister agree that it is simply outrageous that so many houses should remain vacant while so many people are homeless? Why cannot the Government get their act together and provide proper housing for our armed forces and use any excess housing for the homeless of this country?

The hon. Gentleman makes the perfectly fair point that we have too many empty married quarters. We have currently more than 13,000 vacant married quarters, of which about 4,000 are being sold or leased and approximately 9,000 are service stock.

My hon. Friend is currently considering a major disposal of 240 married quarters at the former flying school at RAF Rissington situated at the top of the Cotswolds which will have a major impact on my constituency. Will my hon. Friend please take full account of the views of local people, and particularly the views of the Cotswold district council and not merely sell the site to the highest bidder?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very forceful presentation of his case. If he will be good enough to get in touch with me and let me know what the views of the Cotswold district council are, I shall be happy to examine them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are stationed in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) England. [25103]

The latest available figures for United Kingdom Regular forces show just over 4,800 service personnel stationed in Wales, some 18,400 in Scotland and 156,500 in England.

Does the Minister agree that Wales is very hard done by in the deployment of defence resources? When examining the future configuration of defence forces in the United Kingdom, will the Minister move out of the Napoleonic age and bring about a fairer adjustment of resources and ensure, in particular, that Wales does not suffer any more from this Government's depredation of our defence forces?

That is a typically optimistic Welsh view. It is important that we deploy our forces in such a way as to meet our requirements in the most operationally effective manner. The Welsh have very proud traditions and links with our armed forces, for example, through the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Royal Regiment of Wales, the Welsh Guards and the Queen's Dragoon Guards. Three ships are affiliated with Welsh towns and major defence industries and airforce bases are located in Wales. Wales is not badly done by. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, we are always mindful of helping where we can and we always have regard to operational requirements and the effectiveness of what we do.

Is it true, as I have been told by the defence trade unions, that the Trident refit programme contract has not been let to Devonport because of technical difficulties, and that therefore the contract may yet go to Rosyth? If that is so, will my hon. Friend reconsider the future of the Navy base at Eaglescliffe in my constituency?

My hon. Friend has always been extremely skilful in linking Eaglescliffe to Wales, as he has today. No decisions have yet been taken; I understand that they will be shortly.

On the matter of RAF Valley, the Minister was good enough to see a deputation from my constituency on 23 May. Is he aware that today we met the Secretary of State for Wales, who made clear his support for our bid to ensure the maximum number of local job opportunities under the market testing exercise currently taking place at the camp? Does the Minister accept that we have an extremely strong case to maximise those job opportunities and that the Ministry should be flexible about the introduction of the scheme?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing such a formidable delegation to see me. We listened carefully to what was said and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was fully aware of that conversation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have extended the consultation period, at his request and that of the Welsh Office, to examine carefully the points that he raised. I give him a public assurance that all the assurances he sought and all the points he made will be carefully considered as we reach a conclusion on an extremely important matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the progress that has been made on a common European security and defence policy. [25104]

The United Kingdom has sent to its allies our proposals for improving western European defence co-operation within the NATO framework.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Labour party that British troops involved in military operations overseas should be answerable to the British Government and to Parliament? Does he further agree with the Labour party that we should not opt for a European army?

That is certainly the policy of Her Majesty's Government and it may be the view of the hon. Gentleman, but I have yet to hear it expressed so eloquently by those on the Opposition Front Bench.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the future defence of Britain and the continent of Europe should depend on NATO, not the Commission in Brussels, and that in future we should enhance the European pillar of NATO, using its well-tried and tested command and control set up? Does he further agree that, when we need bilateral arrangements with our neighbours in Europe, they should be secured through the NATO command and control set-up, whenever that is possible?

I unreservedly agree with my hon. Friend. There is a good case for closer western European co-operation to strengthen NATO's overall capability. I believe that NATO and WEU can work closely together, as they have over the past 40 years.

Since the Secretary of State seeks an eloquent response from us on a European army, I shall give him it as eloquently as possible: no. We obviously wish to reinforce European defence co-operation, but does he agree with our view that the immediate issue is not how to pass more power to European defence institutions but how to render their existing power more effective and open? Does he agree, therefore, that there is no question of Britain giving up our national veto on national security matters, and that the way ahead lies in further intergovernmental co-operation and not in giving further power to European defence institutions?

The hon. Gentleman would sound a more convincing supporter of our national veto on defence and security matters if his party were not so anxious to get rid of the veto on so many other issues.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his American counterpart to discuss armed forces issues. [25105]

I expect to meet the United States Secretary of Defence, Dr. Perry, during the meeting of the defence planning committee on 8 June.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take advantage of his next meeting to draw on the Defense Secretary's advice and experience of President Clinton's ill-starred proposals for homosexuals in the American armed services? Would not such a proposal in the United Kingdom threaten the renowned effectiveness of Her Majesty's armed forces as a fighting service and put any future Labour Government on a direct collision course with the chiefs of staff?

The American experience should convince those who need persuading that it is crucial to consult the chiefs of staff and the armed forces before conclusions are reached on such matters and not afterwards.

Whenever the Secretary of State meets his American counterpart, will he put to him the necessity of his armed forces being equipped with the best weaponry that is available? Will he point out to him that, should the Americans buy the Shorts missile for that helicopter, it would render an attack helicopter that is already formidable much more lethal?

The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the high quality of all the equipment that Shorts produces. The United Kingdom's armed forces benefit from that equipment, and I am sure that other countries would as well.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next has conversations with the United States about its views on Bosnia, will he ensure that it is prepared to back its words with deeds by its own forces and not leave its wishes to others to implement?

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. It is worth emphasising that the United States offers substantial air power. Its position on ground forces is well known. We rightly acknowledge the major contribution that it has made to both naval and air forces within the former Yugoslavia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number of anti-personnel land mines currently deployed throughout the world. [25106]

We understand that the United Nations estimates there to be more than 110 million land mines emplaced.

With so many anti-personnel land mines scattered indiscriminately around the globe, does the Minister agree that now is the time to seek an international agreement to ban all such mines? Are not anti-personnel mines causing serious problems for our troops in their humanitarian mission in Bosnia?

I think that the whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a humanitarian problem —mines having been scattered indiscriminately in many countries throughout the world —and a major military problem. To seek an international ban on manufacture, ownership and deployment would not work; it would be ineffective. The Government's view is that the Army needs, justifiably, some anti-personnel land mines. We must, therefore, protect the Army's ability to procure such land mines and to deploy them within the strict terms of the weaponry convention. I agree that we need to improve the convention and to seek increased observance of its present provisions. That will be more effective than seeking an outright ban.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government set an excellent example in spending a great deal of money lifting other people's mines laid in civil wars and in moving forward the humanitarian effort?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government have spent about £14.5 million on mine-clearance work. I congratulate the Mines Advisory Group on its hard work. The indiscriminate sowing of mines, especially in the Falkland Islands, will remain a problem for many years to come.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will commission a military study of the use of atomic weapons over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; and if he will make a statement. [25107]

We have no plans to do so.

Anniversaries are important because they give us the opportunity to do things that we should have done previously. Should we not have an investigation into what happened 50 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? President Eisenhower said that it was not necessary to hit the Japanese with that awful thing. The lesson for today might be that we should not be dependent on nuclear weapons and that we should be reducing our stockpile in an era of non-proliferation treaties, and even removing that stockpile altogether rather than increasing it.

The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that the war ended —[Interruption.] I fancy that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will never again be so popular. The war ended with the Allies victorious. The hon. Gentleman should remember that. We retain our nuclear weapons to deter —to preserve the peace, not to fight wars —in which role they have been a stupendous and triumphant success.

On the question of awesome weapons of mass destruction, has my hon. Friend read press reports that, next year, Russia will deploy the SS24 Topol missile? Does that not cause him to revise his Department's view that Russia no longer represents a direct threat to the peace of western Europe?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the House's attention to the fact that the Russians retain a formidable military capacity, on which we keep an extremely beady and careful eye. He is also quite correct to say that we should at all times remember the lessons of the past and that we need to keep our forces in readiness for whatever threat they may face. I can assure my hon. Friend that the advice from the chiefs of staff is that we are configured to do that right now.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June. [25121]

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

Will the Prime Minister take time off from his engagements to reflect on his fatuous remark that householders suffering from negative equity were responsible for their own plight? Does he not recall that, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he was the main architect of the inflationary Budget of 1988, which led to the dramatic rise in house prices? Instead of blaming those unfortunate householders, will he not for once accept that he is responsible for their calamity?

I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to suspect that he knows that he has quoted me out of context. The remarks that he described as fatuous were actually made by the shadow Chancellor about what I said and were not in fact what I said. I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman should think that I was the main architect of the 1988 Budget, but I rather fancy that the then Chancellor might dispute it.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the decision of Essex county council to end bussing pupils to grammar schools? Is he aware of the great anger in my constituency about that decision? Is he further aware that the savings have now proved to be negligible? Does he agree that, unless the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats reverse their decision, education will go backwards in Essex and only the rich and privileged will be able to afford grammar schools?

I have seen the press reports. I have not called for a detailed report of what has happened, but superficially, on the basis of the reports that I have seen, what has happened seems to be in fairly sharp conflict with the rhetoric of the Leader of the Labour party and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, both of whom have given me notice that they will be elsewhere this afternoon. I understand that the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has called on the Government to do something. He wants us to do something to protect the electors from the malice of Labour and Liberal councils.

Bearing in mind the fact that it was the Prime Minister who set up the Scott inquiry and appointed Sir Richard as chairman, can he now assure the House that Sir Richard Scott continues to enjoy his full confidence?

I asked Sir Richard to carry out that report and I have confidence that he will do so thoroughly. When he has finished his report, I will consider it. When I have considered it, I will comment on it.

We welcome the Prime Minister's support for Sir Richard Scott. May I remind the Prime Minister that it was his Chancellor, on the BBC's "Question Time" last year, who said that he would resign if the inquiry found that he had acted improperly? Can the Prime Minister assure us that, if the inquiry finds that any Minister had knowingly misled the House, he or she must resign?

The right hon. Gentleman may wish to draw conclusions from a partial report not yet —[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"] I will reply to the question in my own way.

rose—

The right hon. Gentleman should contain himself a moment.

Will the Prime Minister make it clear that if the inquiry, in its final conclusions, finds that any Ministers have misled the House, they must be asked to resign?

I have made it perfectly clear that I am making no judgments on what may be in the report until the report is complete. What we have seen thus far is a malicious leak of a part of the report—[Interruption.] I repeat, what we have seen thus far is a malicious leak of a part of the report. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to whom the right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring, has made it perfectly clear that he rejects the observations contained in the draft extract and has said that he is confident that he will persuade the inquiry that those views are wrong and inaccurate. We will await the final report.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful leak of the Scott inquiry proceedings and their subsequent exploitation by the BBC and the Opposition is a denial of natural justice?

The Government leaked it.

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has clearly finally flipped if he believes what he is shouting out at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who leaked it?"] I wish I knew who had maliciously leaked this selective aspect of the report. But I do know who is seeking to take advantage of that leaked report in studio after studio. I wonder what people might make of someone who takes a partial extract of an incomplete report before it is responded to and appears in every studio in the land to smear someone. I know what I make of him. I make of him the shadow Foreign Secretary.

If the Prime Minister has formed no conclusion about the judgments that will be contained in the final version of the Scott report, how was it possible for reports to emanate from Downing street yesterday of full support for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his denial of the conclusions that have been leaked? Will the Prime Minister ever tell us the truth about all this or will the Government behave true to form and never take responsibility for anything that goes wrong?

There was a time, a long time ago, when the Liberal party actually believed in waiting for the facts before it smeared, but that is not so these days. Like Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, at the first available opportunity it takes the worst possible construction, without facts, without right of reply, without consideration and makes its judgments. I will not do that. I will make my judgment on the basis of the facts when the people criticised have had the opportunity to reply and when they have replied. One day, the right hon. Gentleman might learn that that is the right way for anyone in the House to behave.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no public interest defence in what the BBC has done? To behave in the way that it has in respect of a report that will be published in full in any event can only be a subversion of the public interest.

I said a few moments ago how much I deplore the malicious leak and that it appears to have been broadcast without any opportunity being given for the people named in it to respond. I believe that the people of this country will make up their own minds about that behaviour.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June. [25122]

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

Further to the Prime Minister's wholly inadequate reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), may I remind him of what he said last week? He spoke of the crazy situation of spiralling house prices and silly borrowing. Will he never take responsibility for anything —or is he content to allow mortgage misery to continue for millions of people, shuffling responsibility on to anyone but himself?

What the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said —which the hon. Gentleman clearly did not understand —was that I had personally blamed the people who had taken mortgages for their difficulties. That is not what I said, as anyone who reads what I said—

indicated dissent.

Here again, the hon. Gentleman does not want to know what was said; he just wants to take the political opportunity to smear again and again and again. That is the single constant factor in the attitude of Opposition Front and Back Benchers: never mind the facts —let us live with the myths.

I warmly welcome the Government's robust approach to the Messina conference last weekend, but will my right hon. Friend remind Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, that, far from wanting to give up the opt-out or our national veto, the vast majority of the British people want the European Commission's interference in the nooks and crannies of British life to be reduced? Is it not typical that the only people who do not appreciate that are members of the European Commission itself and members of the Opposition parties?

As my hon. Friend knows, we certainly intend to retain the veto in regard to a range of important matters. The Labour party is wrong to seek to undermine the veto position: that will not be understood by people in this country, and it is wholly wrong.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June. [25123]

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

Looking back on four and a half years in No. 10, what does the Prime Minister most regret? Does he most regret the loss of 800,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, the repossession of the houses of a third of a million people or his total failure to appoint a team of Cabinet colleagues who are honest, trustworthy or competent?

I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what I am most pleased about that has been achieved in the past few years. I am most pleased that we now have the best opportunity for sustained recovery with low inflation and job creation that the country has seen for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman can name no western European country whose position has improved so much over the past four years; he can name no western European country whose unemployment has fallen so rapidly; and he can name no western European country with prospects such as ours. That is what I look back on having achieved in the past four and a half years.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that I was in no way misled by our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he wrote to me about arms to Iraq on 4 May 1989? I was astonished, therefore, that the matter was raised at all in the Scott report. When I asked my right hon. Friend what the score was, however, he replied again that the guidelines were applied on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the circumstances of the day.

I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend has had to say in the last couple of moments. My right hon. Friend has made those points to the Scott inquiry and I have no doubt that in the response to the preliminary report he will re-emphasise those points.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 June. [25124]

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

The Prime Minister will recall that in the Budget statement in November 1993 the Chancellor gave the go-ahead for the upgrading of the west coast main line. He said that it was the most important rail link in the country.

If the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman, I think he has made the most classic case for privatisation I have ever heard.