To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider allowing all shipyards to compete for naval refits by ensuring that whole classes of vessels are not put within predetermined refit programmes. [30555]

All shipyards are able to compete for a wide range of naval refits within the unallocated programme. An increasing volume of work will be put to competition as the number of refits in the allocated programme reduces. Eventually, the whole of the surface ship refitting programme will be available for competition.

The Minister has already informed the House that he is considering deferring the ending of nuclear work at Rosyth. Is he therefore also considering reviewing the allocation, and the consequences of his action on the allocation, of refit work for surface ships? If he is considering that review, will he give the House an undertaking that he will also consider the allocation of refit work for mine warfare ships—a particular concern to Vosper Thornycroft in my constituency?

We are discussing with both the managements at Rosyth and Devonport any amendments that need to be made to the allocation of work. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the allocation to Rosyth assumed the end of refitting to strategic nuclear submarines in about two to three year's time. We need to run on strategic nuclear submarine refits at Rosyth and therefore we will reconsider the allocation programme, but I hold out no immediate hope to the hon. Gentleman that we shall reconsider assigning whole classes of ships to Devonport.

Without inviting tenders from others, how certain can my right hon. Friend be that the price that he receives for the refit work at Rosyth, which I acknowledge will have allocated work, is competitive? Is it not unfair that Vosper Thornycroft, which built most of the smaller warships that are being allocated to Rosyth, is not being allowed to bid for the tender for their refits? None the less, will he also take this opportunity just to tell us what the Government's position is with regard to the bids for the new type 23 frigates?

I confirm to my hon. Friend that we expect Vosper to bid. My understanding is that it has bid for the type 23 frigates. I have a high regard for the company. I have confirmed that the yard is capable of a new build of a modern warship. On refitting, my hon. Friend is right, but to ensure that the price is competitive, we use estimates of what we believe the work of comparable ship refitting has been in the United Kingdom. We have refined our techniques for ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money, but I look forward to the day when all ship refitting is available for competition—that should be from about 2005, and Vosper will be able to bid for all classes of refitting then.

How can Vosper Thornycroft be excluded, as the Government are currently planning, from bidding for Hunt and Sandown minehunter work until 2005? Is the Minister not aware that a shipyard such as Vosper is constantly improving its productivity and lowering its cost structures? How can his Department really know what a competitive price for that work would be unless Vosper is able to bid for at least part of the work load that has been allocated elsewhere?

I understand the strength of that argument, but I should set against that the fact that we wish the Rosyth shipyard, in due course, to concentrate only on surface ship refitting. It is important that Rosyth should be viable. It is important that it should make a full transition from nuclear work to surface ship work. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence has an obligation to Rosyth as well as an obligation to ensure that there is as much competition as possible. I remind the House that we welcome competition for the unallocated programme of refitting work, especially for frigate work and that, by 2005, all new build yards and refitting yards will be able to compete for the work.

I commend my right hon. Friend for sticking to the commitments that he gave to Rosyth about two years ago—commitments that were sought from both sides of the House. Is it not disgraceful that Opposition Members seem now to be trying to persuade my right hon. Friend to turn against those commitments, which he gave so readily only a year or two ago?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that support. I can confirm our clear determination to ensure that there is a proper allocation of balanced work, not only for Rosyth but for Devonport. We shall not revisit our decision to allocate Trident submarine refitting work to Plymouth, Devonport, but we intend to ensure that Rosyth has enough viable work to ensure continued employment well into the next century.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on international security of the lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia. [30556]

We believe that that could lead to a serious escalation in fighting in Bosnia, which would jeopardise the humanitarian effort and the international peace process, and would lead to the withdrawal of UNPROFOR.

Has the Secretary of State yet managed to convey to the United States Congress that lifting the arms embargo at this stage would certainly lead to pre-emptive strikes by those who have heavy weapons—not only the Bosnian Serbs, but the Croatian forces? As we are in a position now where the Bosnian Serb army has been blocking and attacking humanitarian aid convoys in Sarajevo and other enclaves for several months, how soon will it be before the new United Nations rapid reaction force is in a position to intervene to protect those convoys?

There has been some progress in convoys getting through to Sarajevo and Gorazde, but I agree that the position remains serious. A significant part of the new rapid deployment force is already in Bosnia and is available to the theatre commander. We would expect further reinforcement of that force to be able to be sent out in the near future.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend discussed the effects of lifting the embargo with our French allies? Without divulging any details, can he assure the House that he has discussed, and is familiar with, the French rules of engagement and that they are the same as ours?

I met my colleague the new French Minister of Defence last week, and I can assure my hon. Friend that both France and the United Kingdom believe that it is necessary to have robust rules of engagement to ensure the full protection of our forces in Bosnia, who will have the full freedom to use the force that they believe is necessary to defend their lives and to perform the duties that they are entrusted to carry out.

If the arms embargo were to be lifted, as the Secretary of State implies, we would have to evacuate the UNPROFOR forces. That would mean that 24 airmobile brigade would have to go in. Has the Secretary of State heard from the Bosnian and the Croatian Governments at this stage as to whether they are prepared to allow 24 airmobile to go in?

We are at the moment discussing with the Croatian Government the use of the port of Ploce as an initial base for 24 airmobile brigade. I hope that that matter will be resolved in the very near future. Of course a substantial part of the British reinforcements is already in Bosnia—almost 1,000 extra men—and we would expect the advance party of about 400 of 24 airmobile to set out for Bosnia as soon as we can reach agreement with the Croatian Government on the lines that I set out a few moments ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel are at present deployed overseas. [30557]

In addition to over 9,000 personnel on permanent overseas deployments, over 1,300 Royal Air Force personnel are deployed on out-of-area operational tasks in the former Yugoslavia, the middle east and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend would no doubt agree that RAF personnel provide a first-class service in whichever arena they serve. Will he in particular praise the Jaguar wing from RAF Coltishall, which has been on almost permanent deployment for the past five years, first in the Gulf war, then in Turkey protecting the Kurds and latterly, since July 1993, providing close air support for UNPROFOR over Bosnia from Gioia del Colle? It is soon to be replaced by Harrier GR7s from RAF Laarbruch in Germany. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to acknowledge the special role that the Jag wing has played and to wish the GR7 team well?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Before I address her question, I congratulate her on being the only Member of Parliament on the armed forces parliamentary scheme to have flown in the Tornado, the Jaguar and the Harrier. I understand that she acquitted herself on all three missions with great distinction and without being in any way untidy.

That is all very well but, since 1990, there have been cuts in RAF personnel of 13,000. During that time, the RAF has become involved in defence projects in Iraq and Bosnia. In this year's defence estimates, it is stated that the RAF is going to lose another 11,000 jobs. There is severe overstretch in the RAF. When are the Government going to decide either to cut their defence commitments or to stop sacking RAF personnel?

My right hon. Friends and I understand that it is the Labour party that wants to cut the Royal Air Force, not our party. I know that it will come as a terrible shock to the hon. Gentleman, but the Royal Air Force relishes the opportunity of flying operations and achieving exactly the exceptional results that it does. It is working hard. It is very busy. That is what it is there for, and it does it very well.

Is it not the case that most of the Royal Air Force's overseas operations in recent years have been outside the NATO area—Turkey, Iraq and now Bosnia? What is the sense of stationing so many Royal Air Force personnel in Germany, to the benefit of the local German economy? Should they not be brought back to this country to benefit our economy when so many proud bases, such as Scampton and Finningley, have closed?

My hon. Friend, as a former Royal Air Force officer, is extremely knowledgeable in these matters. He knows well that our commitment to air defence in Germany at Laarbruch and Bruggen is extremely important. It is an essential part of our commitment to the defence of western Europe. That is why we are there and that is why we will stay there.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held recently with his French and American counterparts regarding the nuclear test ban treaty. [30558]

That is one of the wide range of defence matters which I discussed with and Dr. Perry in the past month.

Has the Minister made clear to the French the outrage felt by many people in this country at the resumption of nuclear weapons tests? Will he impress upon France, the US and other nuclear weapons states the need for a comprehensive test ban treaty, as was agreed at the non-proliferation treaty conference, with no loopholes to allow any continuation of underground tests? Will he give a commitment that this country will in no circumstances resume nuclear weapons testing?

The French Government have made it clear that their objective is to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty. What they do at this moment is a matter for the French Government. I believe that they will work together with the United Kingdom and other countries towards such a test ban treaty. If the proper safeguards can be achieved, I look forward to the successful completion of the current negotiations.

Is not the real trouble in the House with regard to nuclear test bans that the official Opposition are stuffed full of one-sided disarmers who want to throw away our nuclear deterrent and who have taken the lead from the Leader of the Opposition who was a supporter of one-sided disarmament in the 1980s?

I have to say that the Opposition's policy is bizarre, to say the least. They were against Britain's possession of the nuclear deterrent at the height of the cold war and, once the cold war was over, they would have the British people believe that they have suddenly been converted to it. It is an incredible policy, to say the least.

Does the Secretary of State recall that, as recently as 16 May, the Foreign Secretary told the House that there was no longer any need for the Government to undertake nuclear tests? Is that still the Government's view? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not follow the French example and resume nuclear testing?

We have said that we have no intention of carrying out any further nuclear tests and, of course, the United States, which provides the testing ground, has a similar policy. The policy of the two Governments remains the same with regard to this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to visit NATO headquarters to discuss the development of partnership for peace. [30559]

I expect that partnership for peace will be discussed when I visit NATO headquarters in November for the next meeting of the Defence Planning Committee.

My constituents who work at RAF Coltishall will certainly appreciate the tribute paid to their work this afternoon. Bearing in mind the fact that NATO has ensured peace and stability in Europe since the second world war, is not partnership for peace the most effective route towards enlargement of NATO by the eastern European countries? Will my right hon. and learned Friend report on the progress that has been made with the documents setting out the criteria for joining NATO in the future?

Partnership for peace provides not only the best basis for progress for those countries interested in joining but a framework for bilateral co-operation for countries such as Russia, Ukraine and others which are unlikely to be candidates for membership of the alliance. It enables us to develop security relationships with all those countries and that, I believe, is in the interests of our own national defence.

The Secretary of State may know that we have long held the view that partnership for peace is one of the essential elements of the new European defence structures, along with an enlargement of NATO and with NATO-Russian bilateral arrangements. Will he therefore join us in welcoming the more co-operative approach that Russia has adopted towards partnership for peace and particularly its intention, as we understand it, to join in the joint co-ordination cells?

Yes, we welcome the decision of the Russian Government to sign the two framework documents relating to their co-operation with NATO. I believe that it is crucial that, as the process of European security is taken forward, we develop a strategic relationship with Russia, because its co-operation would be a vital asset in ensuring peace throughout Europe, for the well-being of this country and western Europe as a whole.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to assist the overseas promotion of sales by United Kingdom defence equipment industries. [30561]

The Defence Export Services Organisation helped British industry in 1994 to achieve orders worth £5.4 billion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should be proud of their commitment to promoting British defence exports which, from the figures that I have, could be worth as much as £7 billion annually, providing and guaranteeing some 500,000 jobs? Does he also agree that the longer and larger production runs are beneficial in saving money? In connection with the order that the Ministry of Defence is about to place for the attack helicopter, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Tiger, Tigrat, Euro-tiger team with which British Aerospace is involved, and which could add to the great assets that I have outlined?

I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. Conservative Members are all proud of Britain's defence export record, which is second to none in Europe. I agree with what he said about the value of defence exports to domestic procurement prices. Because of the volume of defence exports, we can reduce the cost of domestic procurement by about £300 million a year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not scoring something of an own goal for the Government when he draws attention to the Government's record on defence exports? Is not the real issue the Government's covert and illegal support of arms sales to Iran and Iraq? Given the scandal that surrounds the Government's breach of their own regulations on Iran and Iraq, and the controversy surrounding BMARC and the role of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is it not true that, whatever happens in the vote on the leader of the Conservative party in Committee Room 12 today, the Government will always be remembered for sleaze, corruption and deceit of the House of Commons when it comes to exports to Iran and Iraq?

I think that we would all agree that that was utter claptrap, and I choose my words carefully. The policy of the United Kingdom Government in the 1980s was not to supply any lethal equipment to Iran or Iraq. The record of China, Russia and other major European countries is such that our modest contribution of non-lethal equipment to those two countries pales into insignificance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the United Kingdom's front-line infantry strength; and what it was in 1990. [30562]

On 1 April 1995, the total trained strength of the infantry was about 27,000; on 1 April 1990 it was about 35,900. These figures exclude 2,000 Gurkhas, 2,000 Royal Marines and 1,250 soldiers from all other arms deployed in the infantry role.

My hon. Friend has a distinguished service record in a distinguished regiment, and is therefore knowledgeable in these matters. Does he really believe that the infantry strength announced to the House today is enough to ensure the security of the United Kingdom and to enable us, at the same time, to discharge our international obligations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. Over the past two years, he has rightly taken a close interest in these matters. We believe that the Army is large enough to meet its commitments. The numerical strength of the Army should not be regarded as the primary measure of front-line strength. Its operational capability is of prime importance. It has never been better equipped, motivated or trained. I am wholly confident that it can undertake all the tasks to which it is assigned. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

Does the Minister agree that it is in our national interests to equip our infantry with our own equipment? Is he aware that the royal ordnance factory in Nottingham is now the only small arms manufacturer and developer in the UK, increasingly dependent on how the Government decide to allocate their procurement policies? Does he accept that it is in our national interest to ensure that our infantry is equipped on a strategic basis rather than by the equivalent of a pick 'n' mix counter at Woolworth's?

The hon. Gentleman grossly over-exaggerates to make a point. I pay tribute to the Royal Ordnance company, a subsidiary of British Aerospace, which does a remarkable job in providing excellent equipment for our forces. I reiterate that our forces have never been better equipped. I am quite satisfied that they have everything that they need. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend will ensure that, whatever they can buy plainly from British suppliers which is cost-competitive and exactly meets their needs, will be bought.

What effect does my hon. Friend think it would have on the strength of our front-line infantry if, as reported, homosexuals were to be admitted to Her Majesty's armed forces? Is there any truth in the front-page story in yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph?

I am grateful that my hon. Friend has raised that matter. I believe that the effect on our armed forces would be extremely serious. I want to take this opportunity to say that the reports in yesterday's press that Ministers had decided to review the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces were wholly inaccurate. There has been no such decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of infringements in the arms embargo imposed on China; and if he will make a statement. [30563]

I have not received any report confirming an infringement of the European Union arms embargo imposed on China.

I thank the Minister for that answer and I am reassured by what he said. China has a continuing record of human rights violations. The markets within China are opening up and it is now selling arms around the world. Will the Minister and the Foreign Secretary use their offices to ensure that other countries considering arms sales to China, such as Israel and Russia, are aware of the arms embargo?

China gets about 90 per cent. of its arms supplies from Russia, so it is clear that it is Russian Government policy that will determine whether China obtains access to the sort of equipment covered by the embargo.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further co-operation or integration with the French armed forces is planned. [30564]

The United Kingdom enjoys close bilateral defence relations with France and we are always willing to investigate potential areas for further co-operation.

I welcome that statement and hope that that military co-operation will be extended to political and economic co-operation. Will the Minister say something about Britain's attitude to the gross provocation by France of resuming nuclear tests in the Pacific? Will he send a message of solidarity to the peoples and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand? Does he agree that, for the time being, we should be boycotting Renault and Peugeot cars? If, as Labour Members hope, the Prime Minister is soon confirmed in his post, we will toast that victory in Australian, not French champagne.

That would be going a bit too far. The hon. Gentleman tempts us down a very unwise path. Indeed, I am surprised that he has asked such a question because he is a scholar and an aficionado of all things French. He knows that the decision on testing is a matter for the French. For us, the principal objective is an early conclusion to the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the French commitment to that has been reaffirmed. As for sending a message of solidarity to the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is the French who should do that.

Will my hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's support for the activities of the Western European Union and also the funding for its parliamentary assembly?

I am happy to endorse the work of the WEU. As my hon. Friend knows from his distinguished work with that body—I had the honour to serve under him for a time—the WEU continues to be developed as the European pillar of NATO and a defence arm of the European Union in a way that is complementary to the alliance. It is important that we do not forget that the bedrock of the defence of Europe is NATO. That remains our first and prime charge.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he now forecasts an overspend on the budget for the construction of the facilities at Faslane; and if he will make a statement. [30565]

The Trident works programme is expected to exceed the 1984 baseline estimate of £1.1 billion at current prices by some £800 million. The Trident programme overall is expected to cost £11.7 billion, representing a saving of £3.7 billion over the original estimate.

Is not a 72 per cent. overspend an absolute disgrace? Will the Minister confirm that there have been examples of some of the construction on some of the projects involved at Faslane starting before the design work had been completed? Will he confirm that £360 million has been paid to more than 1,000 consultants who variously have been employed on the project? Will he further confirm that 50 per cent. of that £800 million overspend has been siphoned off from budgets for other projects?

The hon. Gentleman is not right about the consequences for the defence budget because the Trident programme overall has come in substantially under budget. Some £3.7 billion was not required for the completion of submarines, missile systems and the works programmes, so there has been no adverse effect on the rest of the defence programme. I seek to make no apologies for the significant overrun, and I am pleased that the Trident programme was completed within 10 years. When the Public Accounts Committee has reported, we will consider its recommendations seriously and we will respond properly.

What were the principal reasons for the cost overrun on the Trident project? To what extent was the overrun caused by the earthquake in Scotland, which resulted in the need to redesign certain facilities at Faslane?

My hon. Friend will understand two of the principal reasons. The first is that the organisation of the contract resulted in PSA being in the lead for the construction of the Trident works programme, which was not completed either on budget or as expeditiously as we would have liked. We have learnt from that. Secondly, the nuclear standards that had to be met for the completion of the shiplift and the weapons facility at Coulport and other buildings were very onerous, and they changed during the 10 years of planning and construction. I undertake that when we have read the Public Accounts Committee report we will seek to give as much information that is not already contained in the report as possible.

Is the budget overspend provoking management at Coulport and Faslane into introducing tough employment practices and procedures? A number of young men who are completing their apprenticeships are being told that they will be dismissed from employment when their apprenticeships are completed. Why at the very least cannot they be given short-term contracts of employment as journeymen?

I do not believe that current employment levels have anything to do with the Trident works overrun. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I agree that the number of apprentices trained by the Army, Navy and Air Force makes a valuable contribution to society. I shall look into the point and write to him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received following the publication of the Bett report; and if he will make a statement. [30566]

We have received a number of comments and questions from interested parties both inside and outside the armed forces. As we have said previously, we shall be giving the most careful and detailed consideration to all the report's recommendations before reaching any decisions.

In the light of the report and the consideration that my hon. Friend said the Government will give, will he consider putting a halt to the development of Kentigern house in Glasgow as simply an Army pay and personnel centre, and consider the establishment of a tri-service pay and personnel centre—possibly in a great historic city such as Chester, which has a proud services tradition?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—as his constituents will be—for his vigorous lobbying on behalf of his constituents, but the establishment of the APPC in Glasgow will proceed as planned. Any decision to set up a defence agency, as presaged in the Bett report, would not in any way be adversely affected by the decision to go ahead. It is not inconsistent with that decision, and we must proceed if the Army's requirements are to be met on time.

What representations has the Minister received about the privileged position enjoyed by the officers of our armed forces and their families—as distinct from the ordinary soldiers and service men and women—who enjoy the enormous benefit of having their children's boarding school fees paid to an extent in excess of £100 million a year? Is that not unfair to our other service men and women? Would it not be better for that money to be channelled into our state education system and to ensure that state schools in garrison towns had the benefit of that resource?

No.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for developing procedures as alternatives to nuclear weapons testing; and if he will make a statement. [30567]

In the absence of underground nuclear weapon testing, we intend to develop further a range of experimental techniques and facilities for the stewardship of our nuclear weapon stockpile, including above-ground, non-nuclear experiments, lasers and computer simulation.

Following that welcome confirmation that the Government do not intend to return to nuclear testing, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless assure me that it is our absolute priority to maintain the effectiveness of the Trident nuclear defence? Does he understand that this is a matter on which Conservatives are entirely united, in contrast to the Labour party, whose members have always accorded a shamefully low priority to the protection of this country?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and can assure him that the safety of our nuclear weapons will be paramount in our programme. He is right: not only did 58 Labour Members sign the early-day motion to scrap Trident, but in May 1986 the shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), and the leader of the Labour party were both members of parliamentary CND and both put their name to a statement supporting the removal of all nuclear weapons from British territory. That is the policy of the shadow defence spokesman.

From previous answers this afternoon, is the House to take it that the Government approve of French nuclear testing?

The Government have not expressed an opinion; it is a matter for the French. My right hon. and learned Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering the question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence indicated our support, the United States' support and the French Government's support for full implementation of the comprehensive test ban treaty at the end of 1996.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart concerning the deployment of additional troops to Bosnia. [30568]

I met the French Defence Minister in London on 27 June. We discussed a wide range of issues, including the deployment of additional troops to Bosnia.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to read today's The Times, in which a United Nations spokesman was quoted as describing UNPROFOR troops in Sarajevo as "sitting ducks"? Does he agree that if our troops, French troops and other United Nations troops are not to remain another winter in Bosnia as sitting ducks, the rapid reaction forces must arrange for their withdrawal this summer?

No, I do not agree. For the time being, United Nations forces are carrying out a valuable role. That has been widely recognised and we hope that they will be able to continue to do so.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in addition to the participation of French troops in Bosnia, we have 20 to 30 other training or co-operative missions with the French at present? Am I not right in thinking that that was the prime reason for the Prime Minister supporting the defence plank of the Maastricht treaty last year?

There is good intergovernmental co-operation with France, as with the Netherlands and a number of other countries. We believe that it is in the interests of our defence capability to carry out joint exercises and to develop joint capabilities with a number of close allies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ban the export of self-destruct anti-personnel land mines. [30569]

No. It would not be right to ban completely the export of a weapon which we may in future need to import for our own armed forces.

With more than 100 million mines already scattered across the world's battlefields, indiscriminately threatening not just soldiers but innocent civilians, has not the time come to call for a total ban on all types of land mines? Will not the Minister go one stage further by agreeing to press for a total ban, internationally, on all exports of land mines at the forthcoming UN inhumane weapons conference in September?

The sentiments of the whole House are probably with the hon. Gentlemen. However, the plain fact is that a complete ban on the production, stockpiling and use of anti-personnel land mines would be ineffective. [Interruption.]

I am not used to such a cheer when I rise to my feet, but I am grateful for it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is obviously correct. If we procure additional anti-personnel land mines, our policy will be to ensure that they are safe, tested and reliable, which will be a complement to the British armed forces.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30585]

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 my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the decision of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to strike? Does he agree that that decision will bring misery and frustration to millions of passengers? Is he, like me, astonished that the general secretary of ASLEF has not offered one word of apology to the travelling public?

I am surprised at that and I regret it. [Interruption.]

Order. I shall have a little order from the Front Benches below the Gangway—on both sides. There will be one exchange at a time.

I totally condemn the decision to seek a strike, which is likely to cause chaos and confusion for hundreds of thousands of passengers. I do not believe that there is any justification whatsoever for the strike. I condemn it and I very much hope that the leader of the Labour party will condemn it as well and make it clear that he. like me, will put the interests of passengers before militancy.

Does the Prime Minister share the anger and disgust of South West Water consumers—[Interruption.]Tory Members may find the subject boring, but while they continue to tear themselves apart we shall speak up for the people of this country on the issues that concern them. What is more, it is not 329 Conservative Members of Parliament who should decide the Prime Minister and Government of this country; it is the British people at the ballot box.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my view has been that many customers of water companies will be concerned about the reported pay increases of directors, and I share their concern. I think that, like me, many people would have no objection to pay rises that are linked to company performance, but if they cannot be linked to company performance I think that they will rightly be condemned by many people up and down the country. I propose to watch the pay increases carefully, and when we have received the Greenbury report on executive pay and remuneration we will be able to decide whether any action is necessary.

Instead of watching it, why does the Prime Minister not act to put a stop to the abuses now?

The right hon. Gentleman knows, for I have told him before—he is clearly a slow learner on this point—that we will wait and see what the committee examining the matter reports. When we have the facts in front of us, we will be in a position to take a decision: I prefer facts before decisions.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30586]

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the House last night to extend the assisted places scheme for another year? What does he make of a party that voted yet again to deny the opportunities created by that scheme to hundreds and thousands of children throughout the country?

I am unsurprised at the way in which the Labour party casts its votes. Labour Members may talk about opportunity but, time after time, they vote against extending opportunity, such as the assisted places scheme. I am in favour of that scheme because I want people to enjoy opportunities that earlier generations did not have. We act on issues—the Labour party talks about them but does nothing.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30587]

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that today 329 Tory Members of Parliament will probably be taking the most important political decision of their lives and that it will affect every man, woman and child in the country? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the sense of outrage felt throughout the length and breadth of the land that such a decision will be taken anonymously and in complete secrecy?

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman—echoing the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) a few moments ago—that I recall Labour calling for a general election in 1985 and losing one in 1987. I recall Labour asking for a general election in 1990, and it lost in 1992. Labour may call for a general election in 1995 but it will lose it in 1997.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30588]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the City of Chester—[Interruption.]

Order. We need order in the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my percipient constituents welcome low inflation and sustained growth, relish rising inward investment and falling unemployment and require a Government who represent Britain's interests at the heart of Europe—rejoicing in the literal decimation of new proposals from Brussels in the past five years? What does my right hon. Friend reckon has brought us in the direction of those happy phenomena?

I welcome the advantages that have been brought to the people of Chester by this Government. I acknowledge that they will want to see such advantages in future, and I look forward to ensuring that they do.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30589]

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

Will the Prime Minister apologise to the thousands of blood donors whose gift of blood was wasted last week, and to the patients whose operations were cancelled because the Government's agent, the National Blood Authority, bought cheaper blood bags? Is not that another example of what the people of this country have come to expect from the Government, who know the price of everything but the value of nothing?

One of the values of this Government's health reforms is that well over 1 million extra patients are being treated every year. One of the other values of this Government is capital expenditure worth more than £1 million every single week since 1979. One of the other advantages of this Government is more and better treatment in every aspect of the health service. One of the other values is the greatest improvement in primary health care since the health service was established in 1948. It is about time that the hon. Lady took her head out of the sand and saw what is really happening to improve the health service.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30590]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in negotiating our Maastricht opt-outs he proved that he is closer to the feelings of his people than any other leader in Europe? Is not the true test of leadership in Europe to trust the people to think and act for themselves? Is that not how he led us to victory in 1992 and how he will lead us to victory again at the next election?

I did then as I do now, and as I will do in the future, and that is to take the decisions that I believe are in our country's national interest and defend those decisions both abroad and here at home. It was for that reason that I set out and obtained the opt-outs. It was for that reason that I retained them. I believe that that is the right way for us to proceed.

The Prime Minister is probably aware that once again my constituency of Belfast, West was in flames yesterday evening. I am sure that he is aware that Mrs. Briege Gadd, the head of the life sentence review board, has resigned. In that regard, and in regard especially to the release of Lee Clegg yesterday, does the Prime Minister accept that the Northern Ireland Office has sacrificed the stability of the peace process for short-term political gains? Furthermore—[Interruption.]

Order. The Member must be heard.

Furthermore, my constituents justifiably believe that there is one law for soldiers and another law for Irish prisoners.

I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who has played a significant part in stilling the difficulties of Northern Ireland over recent years, that I believe that he is wrong to make that judgment. I hope that he will reflect again on what he said. The decision to release Private Clegg was a judicial matter, which was decided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on its merits—that is both the decision itself and the timing. The decision was made by my right hon. and learned Friend and subsequently I was informed of it. It was a judicial matter and it must remain a judicial matter.

"he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone."

My right hon. Friend is well aware of the healthy scepticism that exists, especially on the Government Benches, about a single European currency. He is also aware that many of us would like to see a referendum on the matter, if it is appropriate, in future. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that to say no, never now to a single European currency would weaken Britain's negotiating position with our EU partners for very many years to come?

I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I had observed over the past couple of years that there is the occasional case of scepticism about European policy—that has been evident. But I believe, as my hon. Friend said, that in the event that a British Cabinet decided to enter the single currency, it would be wise at that stage to consider whether or not to have a referendum. But to determine that matter at this stage would be premature.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 July. [30591]

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

When the Prime Minister was previously elected, he set as one of his objectives the creation of a nation at ease with itself. If he is re-elected this afternoon, in a society and a country where the gap between the rich and the poor has become wider, not narrower, how will he show some commitment to that cause, so that under his premiership Britain is a country of social justice and greater equality, rather than one of greater social injustice and inequality?

I do not agree with the premise upon which the hon. Gentleman frames his question. The greatest destroyer of ease of mind in Britain is inflation. Inflation is now at a lower level and under more secure lock and key than at any time for the past quarter of a century. That is not just a matter of concern to people with savings; it is a matter of concern, above all, to the people about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned—the people who, at the end of the week, wonder whether they can pay their bills and are grateful that the prices have not gone up. To protect them, we must keep inflation down. I have, I am proud of that and I intend to keep it down.