To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the Royal Navy's West Indies guard ship has made to the joint UK/US/Dutch anti-drug patrol. [22306]

The Royal Navy West Indies guard ship makes a formidable contribution to the international efforts to combat drug trafficking in the Caribbean.

Is my hon. Friend aware that just over 51 years ago Dover was in the front line of the fight against an evil dictator? Now we find ourselves in the front line against evil drugs barons. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Royal Navy will do everything possible to protect children in our schools because many local parents are worried about access to drugs in ever increasing quantities? Will he assure the House that the Royal Navy will make war on the drug barons if necessary and take every necessary action to stop the evil trade?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend because he is plainly quite right to highlight the anxiety of his constituents—and indeed all our constituents—about drugs in the United Kingdom. It is perfectly true that, with its West Indies guard ship, the Royal Navy has played an extraordinarily prominent role in fighting the evil of the drugs trade. Since December, the current West Indies guard ship, HMS Brave, has made three major drugs seizures of a combined street value of more than £125 million. In addition, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that a helicopter has identified a number of drug plantations ashore for destruction by the civil authorities. I hope that he and his constituents will be pleased with that answer. He has my assurance that the Royal Navy will do whatever it can to play its part in the war against that wicked trade.

Although I recognise the relevance of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), would he not be far wiser to support Opposition Members who have repeatedly argued for the retention of customs officers, instead of backing Government cuts in the Customs and Excise service, which have a direct bearing on Dover?

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) informs me that there have been no cuts in the number of customs officers in Dover, so I think that the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark. I repeat that all those organisations have an important role to play in the terrible trade. All I can account for at the Dispatch Box is the actions of the Royal Navy, which will continue to play a very prominent, extremely successful and important role.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the RAF is playing in peacekeeping operations around the world. [22307]

I should like to pay tribute to the exceptional role that the Royal Air Force has played and is playing in peacekeeping operations around the world. Important examples include the vital support provided to the implementation force in Bosnia and to the enforcement of no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688.

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the RAF for its role in transportation and supply in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Angola and Rwanda? Will he also join me in paying tribute to the vast range of unsung activities undertaken by the RAF, which certainly illustrate that it is the finest air force in the world?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and pleased once again to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the RAF's work, which, as he says, so often goes unnoticed. As a matter of fact, between 3 July 1992, for example, and 9 January this year, the RAF flew 1,977 sorties, delivering 27,000 tonnes of aid to the beleaguered city of Sarajevo—the longest lasting humanitarian airlift in history.

Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members are also appreciative of the peacekeeping work undertaken by the RAF? Does he recall that in December last year his noble Friend Earl Howe, the Under-Secretary of State, promised some of my hon. Friends and me that he would review the burden of low flying in the south-west of Scotland and the rest of the borders tactical training area? Did not that burden increase in the past year, whereas low flying decreased in other parts of the United Kingdom? Will he carry forward the examination of the study and tell us when some of the pressure of low flying in south-west Scotland will be relieved?

The hon. Gentleman never fails to take the opportunity—even on the most inappropriate occasion—to raise the subject of low flying. Low flying has a limited operational capability in peacekeeping, but I hear what he says and will report it to my noble Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans for the phased withdrawal of British troops from IFOR; and if Her Majesty's Government plan to keep any British forces in former Yugoslavia after 31 December. [22310]

Under the terms of the Dayton peace agreement, and UN Security Council resolution 1031, IFOR's mandate expires at the end of the year. The British contingent to IFOR will withdraw along with other IFOR forces. Planning the withdrawal is a matter for NATO; the United Kingdom is participating fully in this process.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying that. Can he assure us that, this time next year, British forces in former Yugoslavia will not be trying to hold the ring in a possible three-way conflict in a resumed civil war while the United States has cut and run, and pulled out to arm one side in that conflict?

I have said repeatedly that NATO has deployed together, is working together and will withdraw together. The hon. Gentleman has advocated the withdrawal of British troops for a long time. I well understand his reasons, but I believe that the performance of British forces in Bosnia under the UN and NATO has done a great deal to save lives and has brought enormous credit to our forces.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the time comes for our troops to come back from former Yugoslavia, they can do so without having to wait to thumb a lift from our United States allies? Does he recall that that was necessary when the troops were deployed to Yugoslavia? Can he confirm or deny two recent reports in the press—first, that the French have withdrawn from the future large aircraft project, and secondly, that the MOD is procuring ro-ro liners to supplement the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?

On the last point, during the formation of the joint rapid deployment force—to which I would have referred had I been asked Question 4—we have seen the need to acquire roll-on, roll-off craft to transport heavy equipment. The future large aircraft is not at present being funded by the French Government, and we are seeking clarification of their position. As far as transporting our soldiers back from Bosnia is concerned, I do not approach this on a nationalistic basis. It is a NATO operation, and we should use those elements of transport that provide the best value for money and the best security for our returning soldiers.

Does the Secretary of State think that after their tremendous work in IFOR, our troops will be impressed to find on their return that their homes are being sold from under them and that their rents are being jacked up by 10 to 25 per cent. to pay for the exercise? Will he finally now recognise that the sale of the married quarters estate is dictated by dogma—

Order. The issue of the married quarters estate is far away from the issue of IFOR. Members must relate supplementary questions to the substantive question. It is very important that the hon. Gentleman follows the substantive question on the Order Paper. If he can do that, it is fine. If he cannot, I shall move on.

Will the Secretary of State, even at this stage, stop the ill-thought-out sell-out of service houses before the troops return from Bosnia—

Order. That question has no relationship to IFOR.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is universal admiration for the way in which our forces are working in Bosnia and for the co-operation of all the NATO forces? Will he assure the House that the success of their operation will not be jeopardised by too rigid an adherence to timetables?

I recognise, as my hon. Friend says, that there is universal acclaim for the work that the forces are doing. That acclaim is not confined to one side of the House. Quite properly, the whole nation is joined in admiration for their work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs are provided in the United Kingdom by the defence industry. [22312]

The most recent figures available are for 1993–94, when an estimated 395,000 UK jobs depended on defence expenditure. About 80 per cent. of these—315,000—were sustained by my Department's spending, on both equipment and non-equipment items; the other 20 per cent.—80,000—depended on defence exports.

Has my hon. Friend had a communication from Bill Morris, the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor and which—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—and which at its conference called for an £18 billion cut in Government defence spending? Can my hon. Friend confirm that if such a cut were made, not only would there be no defence procurement budget, but there would be no armed forces at all?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, indeed, had such a letter, which has caused us some surprise. The proposal would reduce the level of our defence forces to some sort of volunteer militia. It would mean that we were spending £122 per head on our armed forces, which is less than half the amount spent in Luxembourg. We were surprised to receive the letter. The fact that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is sponsored by the trade union that put the proposal forward—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps the union has abandoned his sponsorship. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union suggests that the proposal is firm Labour party policy.

Will the Minister safeguard jobs and create more in the defence industry by going forward with the future large aircraft project? What is the status of the project now that the French have indicated that they may not go forward? Will he receive my deputation in his office later this month to discuss the project? Does he know that my constituents wish to make the wings of the future large airbus and that they have a very good track record in making the wings of the airbus itself?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the future large aircraft. The fact that France has withdrawn funding for its development phase throws the project into some jeopardy. As always, I should be delighted to receive a deputation from the hon. Gentleman—I have received more deputations from him than from any other hon. Member.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of Saudi Arabian exports to our defence industry? Does he think it helpful to British trade abroad and major contracts, such as those with which British Aerospace and others that employ many thousands of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, are involved, when programmes such as "Panorama" are made, which merely make life difficult for people who are trying to do business in the interests of the British economy and British jobs?

My right hon. Friend is right. Saudi Arabia has been and remains a very close friend of this country and we should bear that in mind in all that we do. We should recognise the importance of the defence industry for jobs, industry and the strength of our exports.

Does the Minister acknowledge the paramount importance to Scotland of Rosyth in terms of defence and defence-related employment? Given the coverage in the Scottish media today about the likely decision to use Devonport for Trident refitting, will he comment on the great concern that is being expressed in Scotland, not least the view of local trade unions that the decision that the MOD appears to have taken will cost the taxpayer £100 million more? Is that the case and does he recognise that the feeling that there has been a sell-out in Scotland is running high?

I shall be announcing, in answer to a written question later this afternoon, that we have decided to place the nuclear refitting at Devonport, but that decision was announced initially in 1993. The comparison between the comparator prices that were put forward in 1993 and today is not a real one because different levels of risk and other matters were included in the prices. I confirm that Rosyth will benefit from the allocation of a large proportion of work share in refitting ships, including aircraft carriers. That will be valuable for Rosyth in particular and for Scotland in general.

Is my hon. Friend aware how important our defence industries are to employment, investment and manufacturing capacity, not least at Royal Ordnance at Radway Green in my constituency? In awarding the contract for 81 mm mortars shortly, will he bear it in mind that some competing countries do not open their tendering systems to Royal Ordnance? Is he aware of the success in gaining orders in overseas markets against tough competition which has reduced the costs of production to the MOD? For those and many other reasons, will my hon. Friend undertake to think British and buy British?

Perhaps I was unfair to my hon. Friend in saying that I had had more deputations from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) than from any other hon. Member because she has been assiduous in backing her constituents on this matter as on others. I cannot say that we will always buy British. We will buy what gives us best value for money. About 90 per cent. of our money is spent on buying British weapons—not because we go out of our way to buy British, but because British industry produces the best weapons. That is partly because of the strength of British industry and partly because the MOD has insisted on value for money and competition. That has done much to strengthen British industry and make it the success that it is.

The Minister's reckless attacks on the Labour party's defence policies show how bankrupt of ideas the Government have become. He knows full well that the Transport and General Workers Union policy is not the policy of the Labour party. At our party conference, we specifically rejected such a move or such cuts.

So it is not the policy of the Labour party. When was it then, that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield signed an advertisement calling for the banning of nuclear weapons from British territory? When was it that, six years in a row, the Labour party passed a resolution demanding that this country reduce spending to the European average? I find it incredible that the hon. Gentleman, who himself calls for a defence diversification agency, thinks that we misrepresent the Labour party's policy. The idea of a defence diversification agency suggests that the Labour party feels that it is better able to tell industry what to do than industry itself. Labour Members, instead of being failed university lecturers, would become failed people trying to stick their fingers into industry. It would not work and it will not work, and they will be rejected.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why we have so many jobs in the defence industry is that the United Kingdom armed forces are not only extensively involved in peacekeeping operations but are training constantly for high-intensity situations, such as proper wars? [Laughter.] There is a big difference, and those who have been involved in proper wars know that difference. Will my hon. Friend confirm that such training includes low flying, which is an essential part of high-intensity operations, and that many of the jobs at Prestwick depend on such operations?

My hon. Friend is correct; with his experience of flying, that is the least that I would expect of him. It is true that our armed forces provide much support to the industry of this country. One thing that we comment on too little in the House is the quality and support provided by the Red Arrows. What they have done in support of British policy and the British image abroad is nothing short of fantastic. We should praise them more often, and I do so now.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has conducted into the failure rates of self-destruct land mines. [22314]

My Department carried out a study of the reliability of timers associated with self-destruct mechanisms for mines in November 1995.

Is the Minister aware that from Vietnam to Bosnia many innocent people have been maimed or killed by such mines? When will he agree with the Labour party and introduce a ban on their export? Is he further aware that in Coventry on Saturday many Church leaders of all denominations were collecting signatures for a petition to the Minister to introduce such a ban?

The hon. Gentleman is right about the hazard that anti-personnel mines pose to civilians, and that is a matter that greatly concerns the Government. That is why we are playing a leading role in the United Nations weapons convention to ensure that anti-personnel mines will in future incorporate devices to ensure that they self-destruct and are detectable. We believe that that proposal is likely to come into effect and be enforceable. We do not want to make pious requests that we know will not be acted upon; we want to achieve a genuine increase in safety for civilians, and that is what we are fighting for.

My hon. Friend will know that the United Kingdom has an honourable record in its dealings with anti-personnel mines, and I am sure that he will speak about that. It is unfortunate that some Opposition Members use the issue as a stick with which to beat the Government. However, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, if it were possible, a complete ban on the manufacture of anti-personnel mines would be welcome? Will he work through the United Nations and try to foster such a ban, because many Members on both sides of the House would welcome one?

My hon. Friend correctly used the phrase "if it were possible". We know that several countries would simply not agree to a complete ban on anti-personnel mines. We want to avoid a situation in which some countries agree to banning anti-personnel mines and some countries do not so that many anti-personnel mines are still lying around and posing a danger to civilians. We recognise that there are severe dangers to civilians, which is why we are going for a ban on mines that do not self-destruct and that cannot be detected. We think that such a ban is very important, and that is what we are aiming for.

Does not the Minister follow the logic of his case that some countries will not accept only self-destruct mines? Further, does he not appreciate that there is much dispute about the failure rate of self-destruct anti-personnel mines? Will he join the Labour party—[Interruption.]—in supporting a call for a ban on the import, export and transfer of all anti-personnel mines, self-destruct or otherwise, and their component parts?

I shall not join the Labour party, Madam Speaker. We believe that a failure rate that is better than one in 1,000 is achievable. We have recently acquired some mines that have been investigated by the United States army, which has suggested that the risk of those mines posing any danger after 200 days is less than one in a million. So the chances of those mines becoming a danger to civilians have been very much reduced.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence procurement budget is spent on equipment designed to military specification; and what scope there is to reduce this percentage. [22315]

To deliver the battle-winning equipment our forces need in demanding environments we have to prescribe certain military standards and specifications in our contracts. We aim to make maximum use of civil standards.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many commercial specifications are now more reliable and are available at less cost than are military specifications? Is he further aware that the US Secretary of Defence recently issued a directive instructing US forces to use commercial specifications whenever possible? When will we follow in those footsteps?

My hon. Friend is right. The US has about 31,000 military specifications, and it is working to reduce that number. However, we have made significant strides in that direction ourselves, and we have fewer than 2,000 military specifications. We are working to reduce the number of our military specifications, and we are doing so at a higher rate than the United States. My hon. Friend is right that we want to rely heavily on civil and commercial standards whenever possible.

Is the Minister aware that much of the defence procurement budget is spent in my constituency on repairing vital military equipment? So when he makes his statement today about the award of the Trident contract, will he also make a statement about the privatisation of Devonport dockyard and end the deeply damaging delay?

Yes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on existing military capability of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [22316]

Reducing defence spending to the current NATO European average would involve cuts of more than £4.5 billion per year, which is about half of our entire procurement budget. That would clearly have a devastating effect on the capability of our armed forces.

This is clearly a very serious situation. Is the Minister telling the House that if such cuts were to be made—which, in the absence of any subsequent declaration from it, I understand to be Labour party policy—we would not be able to carry out either our international commitments or the defence of the realm?

Well, yes, but it is worse than that because of the letter that we have received from the Transport and General Workers Union—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—about which the Labour party seems to be rather uncomfortable. That letter echoes Labour party policy that has been passed at party conference, after party conference, after party conference. It means that we must consider the precise effect of cutting £18,000 million from our defence spending. Even if we simply reduced our level of spending to the European average—at least 42 Labour Members have signed a motion calling for that, and we know that that is the fundamental view of most of the Opposition—the programmes on the attack helicopter, the European fighter and the future frigate would be put in jeopardy. If we followed the policy set out by the TGWU, we would, as I have already said, be reduced to acting like traffic wardens.

May I just remind the Minister of what I have told him before—it is getting very wearisome—that the Labour party conference passes resolutions to cut defence expenditure and the Tory Government carry them out?

The fact remains that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the demands of the Labour party conference to cut defence expenditure. He probably agrees with the TGWU that defence expenditure should be cut by £18 billion, because he does not believe in defence. In that respect, he is representative of the Labour party because one cannot trust Labour on defence.

If we were to cut defence spending to the European average, would there be a severe cut in the number of jobs in the civilian support industries, such as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? That prospect would be far more frightening to the agency and its work force in my constituency than any proposal for possible privatisation, which could establish it as a world leader.

Yes. We would probably have to get rid of all research on defence and as a result we would have to buy equipment off the shelf. We would have to do that at the cheapest possible cost, which would almost certainly mean buying equipment from the United States of America—in fact, all our equipment would have to come from abroad. That would mean that the benefits to the defence industry from exports would be lost. In 1994, we won 15 per cent. of the world defence export market, but that was not good enough, because in 1995 that figure went up to 19 per cent. That success shows the strength of British industry today, and that strength would be lost if we were to cut spending on defence as the Labour party advocates.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number of anti-personnel land mines in Bosnia. [22317]

IFOR estimates that up to 5 million land mines, including anti-personnel mines, may have been laid in Bosnia.

Given the appalling risks that face our troops in Bosnia as a result of the indiscriminate use of millions of land mines, is the Minister aware that General Shalikashvili, the chairman of American joint chiefs of staff, has said that he is inclined to eliminate all anti-personnel mines? Does the hon. Gentleman share his view?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made the view of the Government plain just now, but it is worth drawing to the attention of the House that such mines are a serious matter and that our troops are in some danger from them. The House should know that members of the Royal Engineers, greatly to their credit, have played an extraordinary, gallant and successful role in helping to de-mine Bosnia. They have played an important role in teaching about mine awareness in schools. Where it is able to do so, all of IFOR makes a vital contribution towards trying to return Bosnia to some form of normality.

As well as the excellent measures that my hon. Friend has just outlined, can he also confirm that our noble Friend Lady Chalker set aside money last year to assist programmes for mine clearance in a number of countries, including Bosnia? Does my hon. Friend also agree that we could contribute towards the long-term curbing of the dreadful problem in Bosnia and elsewhere by promoting research into more revolutionary methods to detect and clear mines, because we are still basically working with war time technologies?

My hon. Friend has made an important and valid point. I confirm that my noble Friend Baroness Chalker has laid aside such money. I warmly endorse and agree with his suggestion about research into land mines, and he can rest assured that we are playing a leading role in trying to bring this forward. He, with his expertise, has a valued role in keeping us up to the mark, and we shall be grateful to hear from him if he has any other ideas to this end.

Is it not obscene to carry on supporting the manufacture of land mines when the Overseas Development Administration spends millions of pounds on land mine clearance and in helping amputees? Do the Minister and the Government feel any shame whatsoever when they see the limbless victims of this dreadful policy?

The hon. Lady almost certainly is not aware that anti-personnel mines have not been exported from this country for many years. The United Kingdom, like many other countries, considers mines, including anti-personnel mines, to be legitimate defence weapons when used responsibly and in accordance with the laws of war. Our armed forces have and need these weapons—without them, they would be less effective. It is plain that the hon. Lady is right: it is not something that we wish to prolong for any longer than we need to do so. We are working, together with everyone else, to try to bring an end to this regime—but we will not do so unilaterally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procurement of replacement maritime patrol aircraft. [22318]

We are currently assessing bids for a replacement for the RAF's maritime patrol aircraft and we expect to award a contract in the late summer.

Does my hon. Friend accept that only the Orion 2000 team is putting forward a brand new aircraft as part of its package? Will he also accept that the majority of the goods, products and services purchased with this particular project will come from the United Kingdom, including the majority of the technology from GEC Marconi and Hunting Aviation, which will do a great deal of the work, manufacture and assembly—and which includes the important firm of Baxter, Woodhouse and Taylor from Poynton in my constituency, which employs almost 400 people? Will he ensure that Britain gets value for money not only in respect of technology but in respect of employment and manufacturing?

I have wronged my hon. Friend—he, too, is assiduous in fighting for his constituency interests, always has been and always will be. I do not want to anticipate the competition that we are running at the moment. I am delighted to say that there is a high United Kingdom content in all three of the aircraft that we are being offered for the replacement maritime patrol aircraft. I had the great benefit of going out with a Nimrod aircraft last week and seeing some of the excellent work that the maritime patrols do, both in anti-submarine warfare and in the search and rescue operations in the area of RAF Kinloss. That is a valuable team, which will continue to do very good work for the RAF and for the country.

The Minister has referred to Nimrod. Does he accept that the refurbishing of Nimrod, as proposed by British Aerospace and Short Bombadier, would be a better bid than the Orion?

Again, I do not wish to anticipate the competition—however, it is delightful to see the battle fought out on the Floor of the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is most important is that the RAF gets the aircraft it wants, within the confines of the expenditure necessary to do so? In this context, will he ensure that, in relation to the aircraft that he picks, the full-life costs will be taken into account as well as the initial purchasing price?

My hon. Friend is right to attach importance to the full-life costs of the aircraft. We shall take into account all the factors that we usually take into account in considering this competition. I am pleased to say that the Royal Air Force has been very closely consulted about this procurement, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely helpful remarks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department uses to judge whether it provides value for public funds; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which his Department meets these. [22319]

My Department judges expenditure proposals in terms of their cost-effectiveness in contributing to defence objectives, using techniques such as investment appraisal and operational analysis. We are determined to achieve the best value for the taxpayer's money allocated to defence.

Is it really good value for money to continue to employ the Ministry of Defence police in investigating Martin Gregory, the producer of the "Dispatches" programme on instruments of torture, to whom the Department of Trade and Industry has already paid out £55,000 in libel damages? Would it not be better if the MOD police were to investigate the role of the British Government and British firms in exporting instruments of torture to despicable regimes?

No. I will write to the hon. Lady about the first matter, but it would not be right to accept the second matter.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22335]

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 confirm that a typical person made redundant has to face a 20 per cent. pay cut in order to find a new job? As more than 10 million people have experienced unemployment under the present Government, that is an awful lot of pay cuts and job insecurity. Will the Prime Minister publish the truth in his manifesto—that Conservatives make things worse for working men and women?

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the extent to which unemployment has fallen in this country—faster than in any comparable European country. It is down by more than a quarter on its peak some time ago. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that in western Europe we all operate in the same economic climate. More people are getting back into work, more people are in work and there is a lower level of unemployment in this country than in any comparable European country.

Did my right hon. Friend by any chance see "On the Record" on Sunday, when education was discussed and we were treated to the sight of a Liberal councillor from Kingston who spoke out very strongly against any selective education, but who sends her daughter to a grammar school? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the true working of a Lib-Lab pact?

At the risk of causing enormous offence to an important television programme, I confess to the House that I did not watch "On the Record" on Sunday or the Sunday before, and I suspect that I shall not watch it next Sunday. I notice nods of agreement from the Opposition. We seem to have a cross-party consensus on that point. Nevertheless, I can certainly appreciate what my hon. Friend says, and I doubt that that is an isolated incident.

Does the Prime Minister recall, in the days when he was flatly against a referendum on Europe, saying that referendums were introduced only to cover up divisions in the Cabinet and none such existed in his Cabinet? Are not those divisions precisely the reason why he is in favour of a referendum today?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should say that when he has just announced a referendum to sort out internal difficulties in his party about his policy. I have said that I will contemplate a referendum on a particular issue of policy that has never occurred before. The right hon. Gentleman intends to ballot all his party members about Labour policy—which is a novel proposition: I am not entirely sure how one can ballot people about something that does not exist.

I suspect that I shall have rather more support for my referendum than the Cabinet will give the right hon. Gentleman's. Why cannot the Prime Minister answer now the question that he was able to answer a few months ago? Has the Chancellor changed his mind—a nod or a shake of the head will do? We have paralysis in the Government—even the big man of the Cabinet cannot get his way. Is not the decision being taken only because the Government are weak, divided and are being pushed around by their factions?

That was well prepared, but the right hon. Gentleman was too shy to mention that he has changed his policies on Europe, defence, the trade unions and on almost everything else. As for divisions, I have in my hand a paper entitled "Europe Isn't Working". It is produced by 50 Labour Members and it opposes every aspect of European policy that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister: why does he not put his Government out of their misery and give the country a referendum on a matter that it really wants to decide—his Government or ours?

In order to be kind and generous to the right hon. Gentleman, I am giving him time to find some policies so that he has some basis—other than negative campaigning—upon which to conduct an election.

While our masters in Brussels are deciding how to dispose of the British beef industry, will my right hon. Friend suggest to them that, if they are to slaughter perfectly healthy cattle, the beef would be better used as food aid rather than being incinerated? If people were faced with a one in three chance of dying of starvation or a one in 100 million chance of contracting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, surely they would eat the beef.

As my hon. Friend intimates, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in Luxembourg today trying to restore public confidence to the beef markets across Europe. He is making good progress and he will keep negotiating until a package of measures is agreed. It is no longer certain whether that will occur today: there is a long way to go in the negotiations and I anticipate that they will continue for many hours yet.

Does the Prime Minister realise that, as we speak, jobs are being lost and small farms and small firms are going to the wall because of delay and indecision on BSE? Does he acknowledge that he could take some steps without waiting for Brussels? I shall suggest three: first, launch a British standard for quality British beef; secondly, launch a public information campaign to correct misrepresentation and misinformation, which is still widespread and damaging; and, thirdly, get together with the banks and put together a credit guarantee scheme to help small firms and farmers until compensation arrives. I beg the Prime Minister to act now, when he can, rather than stand there wringing his hands and waiting for Brussels to open the door.

The right hon. Gentleman's last sentence beggars belief, given his party's policy on the European Union, but I agree with him about the need to do whatever we can to help the beef industry. Nine or 10 measures have been taken already; a number are currently under consideration and more are under discussion in Brussels. The Agriculture Council is considering and discussing the possibility of extending the scope of intervention to deal with short-term confidence problems. That would clearly be of great benefit to many British farmers. We are also considering a package of measures to deal with BSE. We are discussing its funding and a number of other confidence-building measures for the market. The right hon. Gentleman knows that although there are certain things that we can do in Britain, the fundamental decision needs to be a cross-European one, as he himself told the House the other day.

My right hon. Friend will know of the concern of some Conservative Members about recent developments in defence. Therefore, will he study carefully reports of a recent conference which considered defence issues, found a potential peace dividend of some £18 billion and, yet again, voted for unilateral nuclear disarmament? When he discusses the resolutions of the recent Transport and General Workers Union conference, will he recall that that union sponsors not only the shadow Chancellor, but the Leader of the Opposition?

I am not sure what proportion of the Labour party's income comes from the Transport and General Workers Union, but it is clearly substantial. If accurately reported, its proposition on cutting defence would effectively leave Britain with no defence at all. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been planning a defence review. I had not anticipated that it would be quite so draconian, but as half their policy is determined by trade unions, we cannot be certain that that will not prove to be the case if it is the policy of the Transport and General Workers Union.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22336]

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

The Prime Minister issued an invitation at the weekend via the national newspapers for a debate with the Leader of the Opposition on national television. Now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has accepted that invitation, would the Prime Minister like to name the day?

The hon. Lady says the nicest things. I enjoy my tussles with the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesdays and Thursdays and on other occasions. I was as surprised as the hon. Lady was to read what was reported over the weekend. I recall very well, as a young untried candidate, trying exactly the same trick with an experienced Labour Member of Parliament. I recall that he said to me at the time, "Go and sort out your policies first. Then I shall consider these stupid PR stunts."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22337]

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

Notwithstanding the exchanges between the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), is not the answer for the Prime Minister to give the people of the country on the issue of beef, in Easter week, when Grimsby and Cleethorpes holds the biggest fish market of the year, the message that people should consume Grimsby fish? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Frank Flear, who is behind the new fish docks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes that the Government supported with massive investment, and urge the people of Britain this week to consume Grimsby and Cleethorpes fish?

I am happy to invite the nation to eat Grimsby fish, and fish from elsewhere in the British Isles. I hope that, having had their fish, people will spare some time to eat some beef too.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22338]

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that, at the recent national poverty hearings in London, one single mother, registered disabled and dependent on income support, described how she had been forced to place her son in the care of her local authority, because underfunding prevented that authority from meeting his special educational needs in any way except through its residential budget? How does he explain to that family, and to the families of the one in three of today's children born into the same oppressive poverty, the contemptible and odious Tory slogan that "life is better under the Conservatives"? For the poor, it most certainly is not; and for that, the right hon. Gentleman and the party behind him are directly responsible.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is honest enough to say that he thinks that his party should put up taxes—I think that he knows that it will. He at least has had the candour to say that in public; it is his idea of the future. He is quite wrong about poverty. In fact, the vast majority of people are better off. Average incomes have risen by more than a third, even after allowing for inflation. The average income of all family types has risen. Pensioner average incomes since the Government came to power are up by about 50 per cent. after inflation. Average incomes of the unemployed and others not in work have also risen. That would not have happened but for the policies, both economic and social, that we have followed.