To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with European partners about defence procurement projects. [30882]

British Ministers frequently discuss collaboration and defence projects with Ministers in Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world.

Given the importance of the defence industry to the British economy, does my right hon. Friend agree that collaboration with our European partners on defence projects can lead to economies of scale and larger markets? Does he also agree, however, that we must not forget the strategic importance of our relationship with the United States, and that any decisions on defence procurement should therefore be based on cost-effectiveness?

I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's proposition. The fact is that, if the United States produces weapons for its own market, it may have a production run 10 times as long as any single European state can have. Therefore, getting together to agree our specifications and requirements in Europe offers great benefit, but to cut ourselves off from the United States, which has a technological edge in many of these areas, would of course be absurd. Therefore, our policy should be to achieve a balance between collaboration in Europe and collaboration with the United States. Of course, value for money and the effectiveness of the product for our services should also be important considerations.

We note once again that the criteria that the Secretary of State just outlined, ignored the key question of the maintenance of Britain's defence industrial base. Will he now assure us that it will be a key priority in procurement decisions?

I am astonished by the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman, who is meant to follow these matters. I made a speech in Paris last week in which I made it clear that it was one of the very important criteria for the United Kingdom that we should maintain a British industrial base. However, I am concerned about what we heard in the debate on the Royal Air Force last week, when we heard from the Labour party about its intention to shut off exports of defence products from this country. That would be extremely damaging to jobs in this country and would also make procurement from British industry much more expensive. The time has come for Labour to say just how it intends to restrict our exports of defence products so that people may know how many jobs will be lost and where they will be lost.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that collaborating with our European partners means that we can maintain our research and development base but that it should not mean the creation of a European armaments agency run from Brussels, which would be of no use whatever to this country?

Clearly, there is a need for getting together with other countries in Europe to see what agreement we can reach on specifications. For some time, a group has been working within the Western European Union—that is the appropriate place for it to be, not the European Union—to see whether we can bring 13 countries together. There is a bilateral effort involving the French and Germans, which we are now joining, to see whether, between those three big players in Europe, we can reach some accord on specifications. That is the right way to proceed, but if my hon. Friend is saying that there is not a role in this for the European Community, the European Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice, I entirely agree with him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for further compulsory redundancies in the armed services; and if he will list the numbers in each service to be made redundant in each of the next three years. [30883]

No further redundancies are planned beyond those already announced.

Does the Minister recall that the 1992 Conservative party manifesto said that cuts of 27 per cent. would devastate our conventional forces? How does he reconcile that analysis with the fact that, through progressive salami slicing that has undermined morale, his Government have cut the armed forces by more than one third?

I know that it might have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, but since that time the cold war has ended, the Berlin wall has come down, the Warsaw pact has gone home and we are operating in a totally changed and entirely different strategic environment. To suggest that the services could have remained still and unchanged against such a background is idle folly. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party is presently proposing to take £4.5 billion out of the defence budget, a conference decision that is binding on the Labour party?

Is not the strength of our forces based on our spending more than the European average on defence? Would not the cut of £4,000 million a year that was approved by the Labour party at its conference and is supported by many Opposition Members lead to a great reduction in the strength and capability of our forces and many redundancies, not only in the services but in the industry that supports them?

My hon. Friend makes a devastating case on his own account. He is absolutely right. Such a move would be deeply damaging, not only to Britain's strategic and commercial interests, but to the very fibre and backbone of the nation. Our armed forces are a golden asset for the United Kingdom. The Conservative party has looked after them well and will continue to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards industrial participation. [30885]

Where we invite bids that involve significant overseas work, we routinely invite bidders to offer proposals that would provide equivalent work in the United Kingdom. That helps to ensure that similar defence work is available to United Kingdom companies.

Can the Minister confirm that, under the Conservative Government, no fewer than 345,000 skilled workers have lost their jobs? Does he accept too that the Government's hands-off approach to Britain's defence industry needs have betrayed those thousands of workers who served Britain so well for many years?

Far from it. Our defence industry is going from strength to strength and we take something like 19 per cent. of the world export market. We are second only to the United States. It is second only to our best ever achievement in the world. That is a pretty good achievement for British industry.

Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to look at another variety of industrial participation—participation by civil aviation interests in a military aerodrome, Royal Air Force Northolt, which has a special place in the armed services? Will he give me a robust assurance that RAF Northolt will remain a military aerodrome and not become a feeder-reliever airport for Heathrow, as was proposed by the Select Committee on Transport?

My hon. Friend will no doubt have read the remarks by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in the RAF debate last Thursday. RAF Northolt is already a heavily used military base and it would be difficult for it to take very much more.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction programme of ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. [30886]

We asked for tenders for the replacement of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and contract negotiations with VSEL continue. The timing of any order is subject to the satisfactory outcome of those negotiations. We hope to conclude them shortly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we can take enormous pride in the manner in which we have re-equipped our armed forces in recent years? Every member of the armed forces must give thanks every day that we have not had a Labour Government, because they would have raped the procurement programme in their search for a peace dividend. Does that success not make it even more surprising that there have been delays in the acquisition of replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid? What is the latest date by which a contract must be agreed in order for those vessels to enter service by the planned date of 2001?

I do not want to give my hon. Friend the latest date for which he asked, because I do not wish to tie my hands in negotiations. However, I hope that he will agree that, as we have the youngest Navy since the second world war, we have indeed equipped our Navy very well, as my hon. Friend said in the opening part of his question. I hope that he will also have listened very carefully to the way in which I phrased my earlier answer, because I gave him news that I have never before given: we hope to conclude the negotiations shortly.

Although I welcome any progress in the placing of orders for those vital ships for the Royal Navy, does the Minister agree that the procurement contract has been subject to extensive and totally unacceptable delays, which have not only compromised the Royal Navy's amphibious capability but threatened many jobs in Britain's shipbuilding industry?

No. What would threaten jobs in British industry would be the cutting of £4 billion from the defence budget. We have managed to maintain a very young Navy. In the negotiations over the landing platform dock replacement, we have also been achieving a good deal for the Ministry of Defence, the taxpayer and the company involved, since we are improving its management practices at the same time. We hope to conclude the negotiations shortly. This country's amphibious capability is not in doubt. I need point only to the recent launch of HMS Ocean and all the extensive capability that that implies to prove exactly that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty of maintaining HMS Fearless during the recent operation in the Atlantic shows the urgency of the need for a replacement, but more importantly, that the Government accept the need for two replacements for two ships? That is the important issue.

I am sorry to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there was a great difficulty in maintaining HMS Fearless during the Purple Star exercise. She performed extremely well. There was a highly successful amphibious off-load from her, which was one of the highlights of the exercise. She remained operational throughout and is now leading an amphibious task force in the Caribbean. She is doing very well and is in a better material state than she has been for very many years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is being spent in the current year on private education and support of officers' children in the armed forces; and if he will break down this figure between male and female children. [30887]

The total cost to my Department of the boarding school allowance for the academic year 1994–95 was £107 million. Information concerning the breakdown of that by boys and girls is not recorded.

I am sorry that the latter piece of information is not available, but it is good to see that the Government are not averse to all forms of public subsidy. How would the Minister justify that subsidy to schools in the east midlands, which can barely afford to cover their running costs and where at least one is having to seek commercial sponsors for its toilets and toilet rolls? Would not the subsidy policy make more sense if the Government shifted it from heavily pampered schools to those that are barely provided for?

That is an outrageous question. I hope that the services heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The boarding school allowance is not an education subsidy. It is a function to allow service personnel access to education. It is paid to assist service families in providing a stable education for their children in the face of an extremely turbulent and frequently mouvementé service life, which can lead to great difficulties for service families. The allowance is paid regardless of rank and it is an extremely important part of service life.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways to recruit and retain capable people—the leaders of tomorrow—is to ensure that they know that their children will have a stable education that is paid for by their employer during the critical stage of their schooling? There is nothing odd about that, especially since we have asked them to go off to Bosnia at short notice.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who understands the importance of the scheme to the overall ethos of service life. It is extremely important that soldiers, sailors and airmen—of whom a great deal is asked—have the assurance that their families are being well cared for. That is something that we can do to help service families during what is frequently a turbulent period in their lives.

Does the Minister accept that the Opposition agree with the boarding school allowance for those who are genuinely eligible, especially those men and women serving on UN peacekeeping missions abroad? Is he aware that many of us are deeply worried about the poor standards of some of the private schools in the scheme? Will he introduce a more thorough inspection system to exclude some pretty rotten schools?

In the light of what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we accept no such proposition. We watch the intellectual gymnastics of the Labour party with admiration. Effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that everything Labour has said for 15 years has been wrong, and it has made a terrible mistake. We will not buy that, nor will the country.

In his supplementary question, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) referred to the people who benefit from the boarding school scheme as "pampered". Will my hon. Friend remind the House that those people serve this country and risk losing their lives?

I am happy to do so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, which I thought was disgraceful. We owe much to our service men and women, who serve in serious and extremely dangerous conditions. They have every right to know that their families are well provided for, and the Conservative party will ensure that that remains the case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held recently with the Government of Sri Lanka regarding the provision of training to the Sri Lankan armed forces. [30888]

In March the then commander of the Sri Lankan army visited the United Kingdom to discuss a range of issues with the Chief of the General Staff and others. More recently a British Army officer has visited Sri Lanka to discuss training matters. Details of the discussions are confidential between Governments.

Is the Minister aware of the reports that Vietnam veterans from the United States are now in Colombo training the Sri Lankan army in guerrilla warfare? Will he confirm that British Army personnel will not get involved in such training? Instead, should we not say to both Sri Lanka and the US that a military solution to the Sri Lanka's problems is not possible and that they should be looking for a negotiated settlement?

I am happy to confirm that that is so. The United Kingdom has provided low-level training assistance, including developmental and technical courses for Sri Lanka. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the prospects of peace. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to monitor the situation closely, and we all hope that a peaceful negotiated settlement can be arrived at shortly.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the negotiations started by the new President and Prime Minister in Sri Lanka were disrupted by bombs? Does he realise that the Sri Lankan army is in great need of the expertise that the British Army can provide in training officers to work against a guerrilla army? That would ensure that the civilian population could be properly protected in the Jafna peninsula. Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the recommendation from our embassy in Sri Lanka that we increase the military advice and aid that we give to Sri Lanka?

My hon. Friend will realise that I study all such applications with great care. There is immense demand for access to United Kingdom military training, both at home and abroad. Last year, 4,270 students from 117 different countries attended training courses in the United Kingdom. That illustrates the high regard in which our armed forces are rightly held throughout the world and the excellent reputation of our military training. I take note of what my hon. Friend said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits of a joint rapid deployment force. [30889]

The joint rapid deployment force will enhance our fighting capability by creating a force trained and equipped to respond effectively and speedily to future crises. The JRDF will be drawn from a range of assigned units from all three services, enabling the permanent joint headquarters to assemble a force appropriate to any particular operation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a role for the Western European Union to play in that context, especially in the light of the combined joint task force agreement that was arrived at in Berlin by the NATO council only last week?

I am not sure whether I have ever had the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work as president of the WEU assembly. He does a wonderful job, much to the credit of his country.

While I associate myself with the Secretary of State's comments about the work of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) in the WEU, does he expect us to believe that, given the Government's enormous cuts in the manpower of Her Majesty's forces in the past few years, any rapid deployment force could be immediately viable or exist other than on paper?

Yes. It is going to exist. It is being brought together at the moment. It will be a highly effective force based on 3 Commando Brigade and 5 Airborne Brigade. It will have available all the support units that it may need. It will be carried forward in such a way that training between the various components will be a matter of routine. The hon. Gentleman should not be misled; this will not be a paper exercise but an important new capability for the British armed forces. He should direct his attention to his party's proposals to cut defence from where we are now by a further £4.5 billion.

May I, through my right hon. Friend, pay tribute to the superb job that British forces are doing in Bosnia through their participation in IFOR? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in all future rapid deployments overseas, British forces, where appropriate, are provided with air-portable, air-conditioned and air-filtered operating theatres? The Defence Select Committee had that lack drawn to its attention during our recent visit to Bosnia.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It has been a magnificent and highly successful operation. We are in danger of forgetting how complex it has been, how much planning was necessary, how successful was the logistical support, how much risk there was and how well it has been done. I believe that our forces have had at all times the appropriate medical back-up, but I agree that, when one is engaged in an operation of such size, it is sensible to take stock of the lessons that can be learned. I am keen to make sure that we learn the lessons for the medical and other fields. I undertake to consider that carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans are being prepared for the withdrawal of British forces from Bosnia after 20 December. [30890]

IFOR' s mandate expires at the end of the year and we intend to withdraw UK forces at the same time as our NATO allies.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the current situation in Bosnia does not bode well for the withdrawal of our troops on 20 December? Perhaps the whole situation needs to be re-examined. That date is only six months ahead. The families of British forces in Bosnia regard 20 December as a significant date because it is close to Christmas. Many expect that the serving forces will be back home for Christmas. Would it not be appropriate to renegotiate with our allies in Bosnia and seek a more distant date to take account of the present situation?

First, I should be frank with the hon. Gentleman and say that 20 December is the date on which the IFOR mandate ends. He should not read into that that the forces will be home on that date. That is the day that the operation ends. I anticipate that the ending of IFOR will lead to a withdrawal of troops over weeks, and possibly months, after that.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British troops will continue to be involved in the implementation force in Bosnia after the 20 December deadline only if, first, it continues to be a NATO operation, and if, secondly, there is a substantial involvement on the part of our United States allies?

Yes. I cannot conceive of any operation in Bosnia of a military sort that is not a NATO operation. I believe it is essential that in any NATO operation in Bosnia the United States should be involved alongside, and on the same terms as, her allies in the alliance.

The Secretary of State will recall that the purpose of deploying NATO forces, including British troops, in former Yugoslavia was to bring peace and stability, and to assist in the reconstruction of the civilian infrastructure of that country. If, without undue risk to British troops, we can continue to help to fulfil those objectives as part of a NATO force, should we not now express our willingness to do so? That of itself would assist stability and civilian reconstruction.

Although I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view, I think that the point is debatable. I am not sure that announcing an open-ended commitment to a military presence in Bosnia would be helpful in creating stability. On the contrary, it might stop the necessary concentration of minds among the former warring factions on the idea that eventually they have to make a peace for themselves. I also believe that what the implementation force was set up to do will have been achieved by December: the forces will have been separated, they will have gone back to barracks and they will have surrendered their weapons, which will be in points of storage.

I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has just said, but is there not a real problem to do with the fact that, of the moneys pledged for the reconstruction of Bosnia, only about 20 per cent. has thus far appeared? Does not that mean that, at the end of the year, the situation in Bosnia may be such that it will be difficult for IFOR troops to withdraw? Will my right hon. Friend therefore urge all his colleagues in government to bring pressure to bear on the countries that are not paying the moneys that they have pledged to reconstruction, so that they get on and pay up promptly?

My right hon. Friend reinforces my point that we need not just a military option for Bosnia but a total package of international help, including money and reconstruction. While it is possible to conceive of a 1997 military operation which is part of a political strategy, it would be unacceptable to conceive of a 1997 military operation instead of a political strategy.

Has the Secretary of State had time to read today's excellent Select Committee report on Bosnia, outlining serious inadequacies in medical provision, the provision of housing and the provision of sanitary facilities? Will he assure the House that the MOD's shortcomings outlined in the report will be rectified and that the mistakes experienced in the IFOR operation will not be repeated—if it proves necessary and desirable, as I believe it will, that British troops have to stay on in Bosnia after December 1996 in order to continue their peacemaking activities?

I fear that the hon. Gentleman has shown a lack of feel for the complexities of a military operation. It is outstanding that, within a one-month period—between December last year and January this year—we deployed approximately 13,000 soldiers, in the dead of winter, in the interior of Bosnia. We got them there, we kept them supplied and we provided them with ammunition, equipment, housing, sanitary facilities and medical facilities—and the hon. Gentleman has said that they were not exactly what he would have liked them to be. We learn lessons from every military operation, and we shall learn lessons from this one. For the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that this operation has been anything but an outstanding success for our forces and for the logisticians who supported them is unworthy of him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current role of the implementation force in former Yugoslavia. [30891]

IFOR has made excellent progress in implementing the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement. It is now putting increased effort into supporting civil programmes, such as the rebuilding of schools, hospitals and public utilities.

Given the good work of IFOR, does the Secretary of State agree that it is important for the future of Bosnia that the notorious war criminals, Karadzic and the general, as well as some war criminals on the Croatian side, are brought to justice? Will IFOR undertake that task? Does the Secretary of State accept that the chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague has stated time and time again that war criminals who are wanted for terrible crimes against humanity should be brought to justice as quickly as possible?

Yes, they should be brought to justice. I can conceive of no lasting peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina unless those people are brought to justice, unless the evidence against them is heard and unless a verdict is reached in each case. As the hon. Gentleman has heard during the course of these exchanges, IFOR has a primary duty: the separation of the forces and now the provision of a secure environment in which the elections can be held. Within IFOR's mandate, IFOR has made it perfectly clear that it recognises its duty to hand over war criminals to the authorities so that they may be brought to justice.

Given the outstanding success of Britain's contribution to IFOR, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in future deployments in peacekeeping and peace enforcement, notice will be taken of, and advice will be sought from, the protection and life sciences division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? We would then have the best possible and the healthiest troops in the field, which would avoid some of the minor problems that were encountered by our forces in Bosnia.

My hon. Friend has made a valuable suggestion. He speaks with great authority and with the benefit of having visited Bosnia. In addition, he has the long experience of a large number of service people in his constituency. I will consider what he said very carefully.

Is it not clear that, without the military's backing, the work of IFOR in underpinning its work and all the grand civilian work of reconstruction could not proceed, and the peace would disappear? Is it not clear that an IFOR mark 2 or some form of military backing must continue after December if peacemaking and reconstruction are to continue?

I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but I cannot go any further than I already have this afternoon in my statements. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that, if it is his view that there can be no proper civil operation without military back-up, it is my view that there could not be a military operation with any chance of success unless it were part of an over-arching political strategy by the international community.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress of the feasibility study on an anti-ballistic missile defence system. [30892]

Our national pre-feasibility study on defence against ballistic missiles, which was conducted by a consortium led by British Aerospace, has recently been completed and we expect to receive its final report shortly.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is entirely conceivable that Europe and Britain will come within range of long-range ballistic missiles supplied by North Korea and possibly China to north African and middle eastern pariah states long before the medium extended air defence system is put in place to defend Europe as planned in 2005, and that the need for a ballistic missile defence of Europe is now urgent? What discussions has he had in sharing this sense of urgency with his NATO and Western European Union colleagues? What has been the outcome of these discussions?

We are concerned about the emerging risks and we are doing something about that, both nationally and with our allies. Only a fortnight ago, I was fortunate to visit the national test facility and the ballistic missile defence office in the United States, where I was enormously impressed by the important and very interesting work that is being done. We expect to take decisions by the end of the year.

What are the consequences of the Ariane catastrophe for anti-ballistic missile research?

I believe that there are none at the moment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that at this stage we should talk up the real threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, most important, by the ability of some countries to launch nuclear, chemical or biological threats beyond their own borders? Does he agree that it would be a gross dereliction of duty on the part of this or any other Government not to notify the public of the serious and growing threat to this island?

My hon. Friend takes a close interest in the matter. There are two issues involved: the defence of our troops in theatre and the defence of our national integrity. Both issues are important, but we believe that the first must have priority at the moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant vessels chartered by his Department to take part in Operation Purple Star were British-registered. [30893]

Madam Speaker—

rose—

Order. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) must resume his seat when another hon. Member is asking a question.

The answer is none, Madam Speaker.

Does the Minister agree that history reminds us of the heroic role played by the British merchant fleet in the life of this country? Does he agree further that that proud naval history is under threat because the Government have betrayed the British merchant fleet by not engaging one British ship? They have commissioned the ships of virtually every other country in recent times.

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition. The Government have taken many positive steps to improve the competitiveness of British shipping and to encourage more shipowners to fly the red ensign. They include generous funding for training, liberalisation of officer nationality requirements, changes in registration laws and the introduction of roll-over relief on capital allowances.

One civilian ship that we do not have to charter in time of war is the royal yacht, Britannia. I urge my hon. Friend to consider commissioning a fast, modern replacement ship which Her Majesty could use, which could be utilised in our trade promotion work around the world and which could be built in the north-east of England.

My hon. Friend tempts me down a path that I am reluctant to tread. No decisions have yet been made about the future of Britannia. However, the hon. Gentleman clearly has a formidable case to make regarding the north-east of England and I am sure that the House has noted his comments.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department makes of the industrial implications of procurement decisions. [30894]

We have always taken industrial factors into account in defence procurement decisions. We have recently taken steps to ensure that that happens in a more systematic way.

I am glad that there has been a slight improvement recently. Is it not high time that the Government took account of this country's employment and industrial base in awarding defence contracts and abandoned the hands-off approach that they have adopted in the past 17 years? Is the Minister aware that more than 300 jobs at GEC-Marconi Avionics in my constituency depend on the awarding of the Sea King airborne early warning contract? The rival bids involve far more development and manufacturing work that is being done overseas. [Interruption.]

The hon. Gentleman's question was clearly greeted with enthusiasm. He makes his constituency point in the way in which I would expect him to do, but I remind him that some 90 per cent. of work by value done for the Ministry of Defence is won by British companies in this country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that defence procurement contracts awarded to this country are vital to the maintaining of our manufacturing capacity? Will he continue to look favourably on Royal Ordnance at Radway Green in my constituency, which is operating successfully at home, in Europe and overseas to win contracts in the face of stiff and—it must be said—not always fair competition?

I was pleased to be able to announce recently the award of a contract for Royal Ordnance—partly, if I may say so, on the urging of my hon. Friend, who has worked so hard for her constituents in this regard.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30912]

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.

Has the Prime Minister heard today's admission by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that Sir James Goldsmith is helping to fund his faction within the Conservative party? Does it strike the Prime Minister as odd that a foreign-based millionaire— [HON. MEMBERS: "Billionaire."] Does it strike him as odd that a foreign-based billionaire who has set up his own political party and is running candidates against official Conservative candidates is also funding his own fifth column within the Conservative party? Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to do anything about this extraordinary situation?

I had not seen that statement by Sir James Goldsmith, but of course Sir James is a man of independent mind. Sir James is of course entirely free, if he wishes, to field his own candidates at a general election—I suppose that anyone with £20 million to spend can afford to do that—but he is not going to change our policy.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his plans to put some backbone into some of our colleagues who seem to be irrationally obsessed with Sir James Goldsmith, and very scared about him as well? That, presumably, is why my right hon. Friend authorised the attendance of four members of the Government at last night's bizarre proceedings.

My hon. Friend may himself think that he requires authorisation to attend particular meetings, but I assure him that all my hon. Friends will use their own independent judgment about the meetings they attend, and about the judgments they take from those meetings.

It may seem indelicate to intrude on private grief, but may I ask the Prime Minister what we are to make of the political party in government when a former Cabinet Minister hosts a reception for a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and his campaign manager, to advocate withdrawal from the European Union—in the presence of Ministers—to the leader of a different political party altogether, whose objective is to remove Conservative Members of Parliament at the general election?

I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory. He entered the House on a programme of leaving the European Union.

The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman's political party is now moving towards advocating that programme. [Interruption.] It is. Let us put it to the test. Will the Prime Minister now join me in saying that the real agenda of many of those who will support the Referendum Bill today is to push Britain to the point of withdrawal from Europe? Will he join me unequivocally in saying that the views of those people who will make that case today are wrong?

The right hon. Gentleman can invent his own policies: he should not invent policies for my party. I have made it clear in speech after speech and in the recent White Paper that this country's role lies within the European Union, fighting for the sort of European Union that is amenable to this country. That remains the position. We intend to try to provide, within the European Union, a set of circumstances that is right for this country. That does not mean that we accept every element of policy that our European partners propose, and it does not mean that we would never be isolated, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. It does not mean that we would give up the veto, unlike the right hon. Gentleman. We are there to fight for British interests, not to follow the policy that the right hon. Gentleman would follow and surrender British interests.

Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman stand at that Dispatch Box as Prime Minister and say that the views of those people are wrong? If he carries on running from them, they will carry on chasing him and the losers will be Britain, our jobs, our industry and our influence. When will the Prime Minister finally stand up and take a lead?

I have told the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is putting views in the mouths of my hon. Friends that are not theirs, and my hon. Friends have made that clear time after time. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to sort out problems on Europe, he might make it clear that he disagrees with those 50 of his Back Benchers who have issued their own manifesto disagreeing with every element of the leader of the Labour party's policy on Europe. Perhaps he will make it clear that he disagrees with them. Our policy is to be within Europe, fighting for British interests, disagreeing with our European partners when we must, and agreeing with them when it is in the interests of this country.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement by the National Lottery Charities Board of £150 million of grants today, mostly to help young people? Does that not show that the House was right to make the charities board one of the recipients of national lottery funding and is that not the true image of the lottery in this country?

I very much welcome many of the awards that have been made today. They cover a wide range, including money for Childline, the British Red Cross, an ex-service men's association and the Samaritans. They will all have widespread support across the country. Having studied the list of all the awards made today, a small number of the awards do not in my judgment reflect the way in which Parliament and the public expected the lottery money to be spent. That is true of a minority of awards. The freedom to make those awards was given to the individual boards by the House and they have responsibility for the awards that they make. Overwhelmingly, they exercise that responsibility well. From time to time, they make awards that are ill founded and ill judged.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30914]

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

I have given the right hon. Gentleman previous notice of my question. Will he revoke his policy on market testing as it affects military units such as the 1,800-strong RAF Sealand in my constituency, where large-scale redundancies are feared? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no level playing field when predator contractors compete against the in-house bid in RAF Sealand, such as GEC and Brown and Root?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the matter that he wished to raise. The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his support for RAF Sealand and has raised it with a number of my hon. Friends in the past. Our intention is to ensure that the armed forces get the highest possible quality of support at the best value for money for the defence budget. An announcement on the winning contractor is expected towards the end of the year. I am not proposing to revoke our present policy in any way—it is the right policy—but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the in-house bid will be evaluated against precisely the same criteria as the two external bids and that the judgment will be made on value for money.

I join the Leader of the Opposition in putting to my right hon. Friend some things that are wrong. Would it not be wrong to oppose the Family Law Bill, which has provisions on domestic violence? As to that measure's marriage elements, is it not right to get rid of quickie divorces? Ought we not to tidy away the problems of first marriages before letting people get on to second marriages, and would it not be wrong to oppose the Bill because of that as well?

My hon. Friend makes his purpose in asking that question entirely clear. I hope that we shall see some leadership on those issues from individuals who might, for spurious reasons, object to a Bill that I believe is in the interests of the people of this country.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30915]

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that drug dealing and money laundering are major difficulties in this country? Is he aware that a Scottish newspaper reported at the weekend that a journalist had approached a major Scottish organisation and offered it money as a donation, and was advised how that money could be laundered? Is that not a particular cause of concern for all of us? Is it not of particular concern for the Prime Minister, when the organisation involved was the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party?

This Government have taken more action against drug dealing and money laundering than any previous Government, and we continue to do so. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman's allegation has any foundation, but if he is prepared to give me details, of course I will have it examined—so that it can be repudiated.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June. [30916]

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

Will my right hon. Friend welcome the recent fall in unemployment, which is a sign of good economic management? Will he join me in congratulating Layeezee Beds in Batley, which recently recruited 60 new members to its work force because of demand for that company's products?

I am delighted to hear that good news from my hon. Friend's constituency, which is reflected in many constituencies throughout the country. The economy is in better condition than at any time for a generation, which is why we were able to reduce interest rates yet again last week—simply because we have been successful in keeping inflation under control. Our policies are working, inflation is falling, unemployment is falling, growth is beginning to accelerate and this country has better economic circumstances than for many years past—and they are better than in many of our competitor countries on the continent.

How can the Prime Minister justify disfranchising 116,000 voters in the election that he called in Northern Ireland when they voted for Sinn Fein, which is committed to the six Mitchell principles? When there was a ceasefire nearly two years ago, no all-party talks were called for 18 months. Had other Governments followed that principle, there would have been no peace process in the middle east or settlement in southern Africa.

Sinn Fein disfranchised itself. It had every opportunity to take part in the talks. Had there been an unconditional ceasefire by the IRA, Sinn Fein could have been a part of the talks process, as I had hoped it would be. Its representatives cannot sit down in a talks process with a bomb on the table and a gun under the table and the threat that, if they do not get their own way in negotiations, they will revert to type and the habits of the past 20 or 30 years. Sinn Fein's exclusion from the talks is its fault. That is the position of this Government, the Irish Government and the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, and that situation will not change. It is in Sinn Fein's hands. A ceasefire and the end of violence, which should have occurred anyhow, quite apart from the talks, and the way would be open for Sinn Fein to join the discussions.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House believes that raising standards in schools is essential for the economic prosperity and social cohesion of the nation; notes the appalling disparity in skills between the UK and other developed nations; condemns the Government's obsession with structures at the expense of standards; and further urges Ministers to concentrate their efforts on providing excellence for all rather than returning to the divisions of the past.

Not very successfully.

If I am not doing so very successfully, a little whole-class teaching, which I intend to give this afternoon, is needed.

I am totally astonished that the hon. Gentleman has so much sympathy for the Government. Has not the Labour party changed almost every policy that it has put forward in the past 20 years, never mind 17 years?

As I shall show this afternoon, every time Labour announces a policy, the Secretary of State comes up with her own version of it a few days later. [Laughter.] I am delighted to share in the amusement of Conservative Members. The opinion polls should suggest a different story to those who find the matter funny. With Labour having a 39-point lead on education and an even bigger lead on the issue of standards, I do not think that the Tories have anything to laugh about at all. We are trouncing the Conservative party on every single issue in education, because—after 17 years of failure—we are concentrating entirely on lifting standards, achievement and opportunity for all our children in every school in every community in Britain. We are not concentrating on providing a privileged education for a few, and mediocrity for the many.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way in a moment. [Interruption.] I am being heckled by junior members of the Secretary of State's education team, who are being threatened by the chairman of the Conservative party. He is suggesting that a rabid right winger is needed in the Secretary of State's team to bring a little sharpness to the debate. I look forward to the reshuffle that may take place in July, when I shall find out who that rabid right winger might be.

Bill Cash.

I doubt that it will be the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), on the grounds that that would be going one step too far in terms of European union. The Tory party should be making more effort to match the standards that exist in other European countries. The indictment is that, on every single statistical estimate available, the Conservatives have failed to match what is happening in other developed countries around the world.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that education is run locally? Is he aware that the Labour party has been in charge of many local authorities for 50 or 60 years, and that standards in those authorities, which include Hackney and Islington, are deplorably low? How can he pretend that the Labour party stands for higher standards, when in practice it achieves absolutely nothing?

I thought that the Government had announced that they had decentralised and devolved responsibility from local education authorities to schools. I thought that they took pride in the local management and local funding arrangements for schools, and in the fact that they had taken away what they describe as the "control" of local authorities.

If a Labour Government were elected, would it retain the services of the current chief inspector of schools, Mr. Woodhead?

The question rests with the Secretary of State, who is in danger of having someone declare a by-election in what might euphemistically be termed a Conservative safe seat to allow the head of Ofsted to step into Parliament and take her place, for which several Conservative newspapers have called recently. If I were Secretary of State, I would make a decision that would ensure that everyone responsible co-operated. I would not divide the service. I would concentrate not on selection, grant-maintained status or structure but on the key task of giving our children the same life chance that they would have if they lived in France, Germany or Switzerland.

rose—

I shall give way in a moment.

On education policy U-turns, does the hon. Gentleman recall his attack in the Sheffield Star only 18 months ago, when he condemned people who

"preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area."

I dealt with that silly question in the previous education debate, when the hon. Gentleman asked it in exactly the same terms. I understand now why the electorate are so unenamoured of the Government. They hear the same old tripe week after week, and month after month. Let me talk about what people want to hear about—the real lessons of education.

rose—

No, I shall make some progress before I give way again.

"The top 15 per cent. of youngsters who come out of our schools are equal to anything you will find anywhere in the world. The other 85 per cent. frankly are not."

"she glared at me and changed the subject."

I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that grammar schools would not be allowed under a Labour Government. He must be aware that his party's leader has said that parents whose children currently enjoy the benefits of grammar schools can vote to retain them if they so wish. Does he support his leader's policy; if so, does he believe it inconsistent to allow those who enjoy the benefits of grammar schools to retain them but not to allow others to vote for those benefits by voting for new grammar schools in their areas? If choice is to mean anything, people must be given that choice.

I was not sure—I gather from radio broadcasts that Ministers are not sure either—that Tory party policy would allow local populations to vote on the matter, thereby reopening all the votes in local elections of the past 30 years to remove grammar schools and ensure open access and admission policies. But let me answer the question directly: I wrote the policy, so of course I am in favour of it. I wrote the policy, suggesting that we will not permit selection, but where grammar schools already exist, parents with a direct interest in their children's admission to them will have a vote. That seems perfectly fair to me.

Is not the problem that some rich and powerful parents are able to exercise selection by bussing their children from one side of London to the other? That being the case, what choice would the hon. Gentleman give to parents in west London, for example, who would expect to be able to feed into the Oratory school but are unable to because some parents bus their children in from the other side of London? They have no choice; they have no selection. What would the hon. Gentleman do about that? What would he say to those parents?

When the Conservative Government introduced the London Government Act 1963, they permitted people across the then Inner London education authority to choose—as denominational parents have done over the decades—to send their children to the school of their preference. I did not know that Conservative Back Benchers were against that; I did not know that they would be arguing against Catholic parents being able to choose a Catholic school, whether it is voluntary aided or otherwise. Let me make it absolutely clear that the whole task of lifting standards rather than meddling with structures is to ensure that parents can make genuine choices, because real opportunity exists, because every single school is performing at its best.

Middle-class left-wingers.

No, I am not talking about middle-class left-wingers; I am talking about the 20 out of 23 members of the Cabinet, from the Prime Minister down. Those in the Cabinet who have not bought private education are desperately fighting to stop the education system of this country being completely divided and ruined once again by a squabble over structure—including, apparently, the Secretary of State, who is losing hands down.

No, we do not.

The junior Minister has said that we do not. There are now 1.6 million children in primary education who are being taught in classes of more than 30. Pupil-teacher ratios have risen for the fifth year running. The statistics would have hit the headlines if the Government had got them right the first time round. The Government cannot add up, nor can they spell. They have issued press releases that have misspelt the Isle of Wight—it has been spelt "White". The Government are not literate or numerate. Is it any wonder that the rest of the population are struggling? The most indictable statistic is that more than 41,000 young men and women left our schools last year at the age of 16 without any qualifications.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he intends to move on, but it is important to put on record the fact that, according to the latest figures that I have seen, there are fewer primary school pupils in classes of more than 30 and 35 than there were in 1979.

Which set of latest statistics is the Minister talking about? Some 1.6 million children are desperately seeking a Government who will pay not for a handful of people to go to the private sector but for lower class sizes at the key infant stage in order to ensure that all five, six and seven-year-olds learn to read, write and add up. Teachers need the time and the space to do the job. The Government will achieve that end not by providing a paper promise of nursery education, but by providing genuine, free, professional and high-quality nursery places. That should be followed by teaching the basics in classes that are small enough to manage. Targets must be set throughout primary education following a baseline assessment that is made when a child enters a reception class. In that way we shall begin to transform our education system.

Nursery education in my constituency is at 94 per cent.—and it has been at that level for the past 20 years. That figure has been achieved through the co-operation of local authorities of all political colours. Predominantly Conservative Governments—at least for the past 17 years—have provided enough money to pay for 94 per cent. of nursery education. My local authority has chosen to make that provision while other local authorities have chosen to waste their money in other ways. Consequently, we have had to ring-fence the money for nursery education by giving it to the parents so that local authorities that do not have high nursery education priorities cannot cheat them any longer.

I knew that the intervention would be a good one. The hon. Gentleman should reflect not upon what the Conservative Government have given to Calderdale, but upon the way in which the local authority—comprising parties of all political persuasions—has prioritised nursery education. It did so against the backcloth of a letter that the hon. Gentleman received from the Secretary of State 18 months ago suggesting that expenditure on nursery education was a diversion from real expenditure on mainstream schooling.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Certainly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can add his own examples.

I have been following Labour education policy for many years. Is not the hon. Gentleman's attempt to rewrite history a complete travesty? During the past few months, he and the leader of his party have tried to apologise for everything that Labour and the militant teachers it has supported have stood for for over 17 years. Is he not really admitting today that the Conservatives have been right all along, and trying to rewrite Labour policy in the Conservative shadow?

I find it difficult to take anything seriously from someone who is abandoning his constituency for the chicken run because he knows that education policy, and Tory party policy generally, will result in his losing his seat. Let me deal with the issue head on, however.

I accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's comments that national initiatives must be translated into best practice, school by school and classroom by classroom. Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity now to say that he and his party have full confidence in the independence, integrity and programme of work of the current chief inspector of schools?

I am sorry, but it is not my job to answer questions about the chief inspector of schools. It will be my job shortly, God willing, and I will then answer questions. Is it not interesting that a Secretary of State under siege, who is doing her best to fulfil the mandate that she was originally given, is now taking second place to an appointed official? Is it not a shame that Conservative Back Benchers have to ask me, the shadow Secretary of State, what I will do about the chief inspector of schools? It is the chief inspector's job to reveal the inadequacy, the failure and the abysmal performance of 17 years of Tory government, and it will be our job to do something about those problems.

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

'welcomes the measures which Her Majesty's Government has introduced to raise educational standards through greater diversity and parental choice, the establishment of a common framework for the curriculum, assessment and regular testing, greater self-government for schools and colleges, and enhanced accountability through inspection and the publication of performance information; and welcomes the increases in achievement and participation which have followed.'.

Will the Secretary of State comment on Labour-controlled Northumberland, where only two schools have gone grant-maintained? One did so by two votes, with the opposition of most of the parents when they realised what that decision meant. The other school went grant-maintained because there was a proposal to close some primary schools in the county because of its sparse population. Northumberland is at the opposite end of the scale that the right hon. Lady mentioned. Can she say anything critical about Northumberland and its education authority?

Last year, Northumberland county councillors complained that their education budget fell short by £700,000, but awarded councillors £500,000 in increased meal and travel allowances. They also should have known that the case of Hackney Downs shows convincingly that there is no connection between resources and results. There may be some connection between Labour councillors and higher meals and mileage allowances.

I implore my right hon. Friend not to move on without referring to Derbyshire, which was omitted from her list. Is she aware that places such as Bolsover and Chesterfield have one nursery school for every 6,000 or 7,000 of the population, whereas High Peak and the Derbyshire dales have one nursery school for up to every 22,000? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures reveal not only reprehensible management but show that downright political bias determines Labour education policy?

The story of Derbyshire's local authority would fill a book, or many books. I am delighted that my hon. Friends lose no opportunity to expose the extraordinary goings-on and the extraordinary identification of priorities that we have seen in that authority.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that she is criticising the political control of the LEAs, not the teachers, who are professional, dedicated and do an excellent job? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the increase in the number of youngsters in higher education from one in eight to one in three is one of the greatest achievements of the Government, and that it would be put at risk if she were to adopt policies that Labour advocates, such as doing away with the student grant and child benefit?

It is extraordinary that, while claiming that they want to give incentives to young people to continue in education and training, Labour Members use as their means a tax on parents of £560 per child. The increase in numbers going into higher education represents a welcome increase in standards of achievement over the past 16 years. However, as I am always ready to admit, there is a great deal more to do.

I should like to clarify this, because it is important for the months and years ahead. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that it is not possible for teachers to teach well, for heads to lead or for education officers to give support if the councillors are not of the best in those individual authorities? I should be grateful for a straight answer.

The straight answer is that I have given the House illustrations of bad achievement in Labour-controlled local authorities, which have been backed up by examples given by my hon. Friends and which, alas, illustrate all too well the prospects for education, training and competitiveness in this country in the unlikely and appalling event of a Labour Government being elected.

With the right hon. Lady's indulgence, let us pursue this a little further. Is she suggesting that the political complexion of the elected members of an authority is affecting the teaching of children in the classroom, the quality of head teachers or the work of officials in those authorities?

The record of the authorities I have quoted speaks for itself, and there is no need to go into more detail. It is obvious that, in badly managed, Labour-run authorities, everyone's job is more difficult.

May I refer to the difficulties that the hon. Lady seemed to be presenting to the House in her last comments? If head teachers, councillors and local education officers can monitor what is needed in a particular area, the Secretary of State should be receptive to those needs. In my authority of Staffordshire, there is a clear and urgent need for capital spending on school buildings. Despite extensive building repair and improvements, there are schools in my constituency with classrooms that should not be used. Repeated bids to her Department have not provided the funding we need to bring the classrooms up to an acceptable level. Surely that will affect education standards. Can we abandon this party political approach that the right hon. Lady seems to be adopting, and recognise what is needed in our nation's schools?

I am delighted to abandon the party political approach for one moment by telling the hon. Lady a fact—spending on capital programmes has been increased for this year by 7 per cent., which should help Staffordshire and every other local authority in the land. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Lady of the party political activity undertaken by her colleagues in the House and elsewhere who have opposed everything that the Government have sought to put in place to improve standards in education.

My right hon. Friend has been talking about the measures that the Government have taken to improve education standards. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to the assisted places scheme. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that excellent scheme is designed to help poorer families, not the better-off, as the hon. Gentleman wrongly alleged in his speech?

I am delighted to confirm that the assisted places scheme is designed specifically to help children from disadvantaged families take advantage of a good education within the independent sector. It extends the choice and diversity that have been the key notes of this Government's education policies.

Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to congratulate the headmaster, staff, governors, parents and children at Ripley St. Thomas school in my constituency, which has recently become a specialist language centre, having raised vast sums from everybody in the locality? One of these days, would my right hon. Friend pay a visit to the school, because I am sure that she would enjoy it?

I am sure I would, especially if my hon. Friend were the guide. I am delighted to congratulate those responsible for the school, because that example illustrates precisely the greater choice for parents and the greater diversity that we have sought to put in place.

Will the right hon. Lady explain to the House why, when she was a member of Norfolk county council's education committee, she voted for the closure of all the remaining grammar schools in the county, including the one that she attended, North Walsham girls high school? Why did she do that, and what has changed her mind since then?

The hon. Lady will find that her chronology is a little wrong. She will find that I may well have been working for the council at that time, but I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned Norfolk, because an entirely new choice for parents has been introduced by the Government with the introduction of vouchers for four-year-olds. The hon. Lady has made quite a campaign of trying to rubbish what is going on with nursery vouchers in Norfolk, and I am delighted to tell her the result of some research that we are producing today. It shows that 86 per cent. of Norfolk parents are delighted with the nursery voucher scheme. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be thrilled to hear that.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

No, not at the moment. I must make progress.

The right hon. Lady earlier drew comparisons with Labour local authorities. Will she cast her mind back to the time when she was a leading light in Norfolk county council's education authority? She may even have been the chair of that authority for a time—[Interruption.] Does she recall that, when she played a leading role in Norfolk education, it was probably the worst authority in the country? It was at the bottom for the league for expenditure on books, for expenditure on pupils and for class sizes, for expenditure on buildings. Independent observers held it up as an authority—[Interruption.] Its results were very poor, too—[Interruption.] I keep being interrupted, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It is a rather long intervention, but it is not helped by sedentary interventions from Conservative Members.