To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the base vehicle depot at Ashchurch. [34897]

We continue to update the investment appraisal that led to the decision to opt for a single site at Ashchurch for long-term Army vehicle storage.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and also for keeping me continuously informed by answers to parliamentary questions and in correspondence. Originally, the decision was made to transfer all the Army's storage and vehicle maintenance to the site at Ashchurch in my constituency, and yet, a year after that decision, a further investment appraisal has been commissioned. That is very unsettling for the 206 civilian employees in my constituency. I understand that the results of the further appraisal will be announced at the end of July. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is the case, so that my constituents can get on with making a private sector bid under the private finance initiative bid—which is a huge undertaking—in line with the Government's thinking?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has lobbied hard for his constituents in this matter. I also regret that we should—of necessity in such a big project—have found it necessary to go back and to confirm the investment appraisal estimates—something that happens often in projects of this size and type. I urge him not to be alarmed in any way. While we await the results—which I confirm will be at the end of July—I see no sign that the earlier decision should be called into question in any way.

Does the Minister agree that his attempts to merge the two Army vehicle depots into one at Ashchurch simply have not worked, and that the entire scheme now needs to be reviewed? Does he accept that his estimated savings of £25 million over 30 years will be completely wiped out by huge increases in transport costs and by a £33 million bill for new roads and new buildings? Is that not just another example of classic financial incompetence?

I can agree with none of that claptrap, which is ill-founded, ill-informed, ignorant and wide of the mark in every respect and to every degree. It is an entirely sensible and rational decision. We have no reason to believe that very substantial savings will not be made. We regard it as another example of decisive, clear decision making and clear leadership by a Government who are quite clear of the way they are going.

Will my hon. Friend have another look at those plans to reassure himself that they are adequate when reinforcements and military vehicles are required in the light of the call for independence for the Isle of Wight by the leader of its Liberal-controlled council? I do not know what the Liberal Democrats as a military dictatorship on the Isle of Wight do to the enemy, but, politically, they scare the hell out of me.

My hon. Friend may be wholly reassured that the position of Ashchurch is entirely compatible with the whole-hearted defence of the Isle of Wight.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit Bosnia to discuss the deployment of British forces. [34898]

I shall be visiting British forces in Bosnia in September.

Why is it not part of IFOR's mandate to apprehend war criminals and to bring them to the tribunal in the Hague? Why cannot changes be made to secure that objective in IFOR's mandate—or are we, as usual, simply ducking the issue?

The primary role of the implementation force is the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement and, in particular, the separation of forces, the returning of forces to barracks and getting the weapons of the warring factions into compounds. The forces will hand over to justice those indicted war criminals with whom they come into contact, but it is not a part of their primary objective to conduct a manhunt for the indicted war criminals. Those are matters for the international tribunal that is conducting the indictment, and it will issue the warrants for the arrest of the indicted war criminals.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is in Britain's national interest to continue to play our part in the United Nations and NATO operations in Bosnia? Will he also confirm that, if the reported proposed cuts in the defence budget of some £400 million proceed, we shall not be able to do so? Is he aware of the vast support among Conservative Members—also, I dare say, from a number of Opposition Members—for the defence budget to be not only maintained at its present level of 2.8 per cent. of gross domestic product, but restored to last year's level of 3 per cent?

It is extremely important to retain strong national defences and to make the appropriate commitment to our defence budget. We have given undertakings to provide stability following a period of great change that our forces undertook with great distinction. My hon. Friend must not become carried away with what he reads in the newspapers.

As the full horror of the consequences of the fall of Srebrenica is revealed to us, is it not offensive that Dr. Karadzic and General Mladic continue to be at liberty? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the question whether or not they should be taken into custody is one of timing and not principle? Does he accept that there is a connection between that and an early decision on whether there should be a follow-on force to the implementation force as a demonstration of our commitment to ensure that all who are guilty of war crimes will ultimately be brought to justice?

I agree that the continued liberty of those two men is offensive, and there can be no ultimate solution in Bosnia-Herzegovina unless they are brought to justice. I certainly agree that they will, in time, be brought to justice and there is no issue of principle whatsoever in the matter. I am not so sure that I agree that a decision about a follow-on force needs to be taken yet, and a little patience on that question is appropriate. Whatever it may decide on that issue, the international community is committed to the Dayton peace agreement and to a strategy to make sure that the agreement is successful in the long term.

If my right hon. Friend believes—as he says he does—that those two men should be brought to justice, does he agree that it makes a mockery of the whole process that, although IFOR has a large force in Bosnia, they remain at large? Should they not be taken to The Hague and put on trial? Would that not do more than any other single factor to bring this appalling and terrible tragedy to a more satisfactory conclusion?

That is a judgment for the international community. It is a difficult one, and there are other factors. The international community's top priority at the moment in Bosnia is the holding of free and fair elections to produce a Government that is democratic and representative of the wishes of the people. My hon. Friend must remember that many other hard-liners stand behind Karadzic and Mladic, and the removal of those individuals will not necessarily deal with the whole problem. My hon. Friend must bear those factors in mind when he considers the way in which the international community addresses the problems.

Whatever reservations on specific issues have been raised, I am sure that the whole House agrees that our troops and IFOR have played a vital role in the transition from war to peace. Surely it is now right to give serious consideration to a follow-on force. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has made it plain that the Opposition believe that British troops should play some part in that force. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that that force should be composed of significant numbers of all our allies? Will he therefore illustrate to the House for operational and political reasons that he will urge all our allies to play a part in that force when and if it is established?

I have argued not that it is too early to consider the matter but that it is too early to reach conclusions or make announcements about them. If there were to be a follow-on force, it would be essential that it should be a NATO force, that the NATO allies should be involved—and involved in the same way as each other. If there were to be ground forces, they would have to come from all the nations. The hon. Gentleman is pushing against an open door. It is understood that, whatever NATO decides to do in Bosnia, NATO will do together.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his French opposite number to discuss European security issues. [34899]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence meets his French counterpart regularly; they last meet during the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels on 13 June.

Whatever bilateral or multilateral arrangements we make with our European counterparts, does my hon. Friend agree that, unless they are supplementary to the fundamental alliance we have in NATO across the Atlantic with the Americans, we are treading down a dangerous path? Has he considered what risks are posed to the credibility of NATO by new Labour and the new danger of its proposal to give up the veto?

As always, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. I agree that closer ties with France, with Europe and with the United States are all essential, especially for defence procurement. We shall continue to procure equipment in the United Kingdom, in Europe and in the United States: from wherever it is best, and financially and economically sensible, to do so.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State would have been able to discuss those issues with the French Minister of War Veterans and Victims of War had he been present a week yesterday at the Somme commemoration at Thiepval? A constituent of mine who was present has written to express his "disgust and dismay" at the fact that, while the French had a "splendid contribution" of

"a full company of over 200 French troops and a full French military band",

"a lone Scots Guard piper and a couple of … buglers."

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman feels it right to make cheap points out of a very important commemoration, at which we were fully represented at the highest level by a Cabinet Minister whose father fought on the Somme. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman feels it right to behave in such a way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future development of NATO. [34900]

NATO is the cornerstone of European defence arrangements. It must evolve to reflect the demands of its new missions, to absorb new members, and to develop a European defence identity within the alliance. We shall play our full part.

Given that NATO has preserved the peace in Europe for the past 50 years and that, throughout that period, our nuclear weaponry has been jointly under control of our Government and of the NATO allies, will my right hon. Friend comment on the report issued by the Defence Committee of the European Union which calls for our nuclear weapons, together with those of France, to be placed under the control of a new European defence force?

That proposal is severely misguided. Our nuclear deterrent has, as my hon. Friend said, had a dual purpose since its inception. It has been available for national defence and has been made available for NATO defence. NATO is the appropriate body for the security and defence of Europe. It will remain so, and Britain will remain among its firmest supporters.

Is not the credibility of the NATO mission in Bosnia constantly being eroded by the continued freedom of Karadzic and Mladic? Is it not time that NATO took serious action to bring them to justice, and is not a NATO follow-on force inconceivable while they are at large in Bosnia?

I have largely dealt with those points already. I add only that, although the long-term peace of Bosnia-Herzegovina depends upon those people being brought to justice, I do not conclude that if, for any reason, they were at liberty at the end of the year, we could not have a follow-on force; nor do I believe that the credibility and effectiveness of the NATO force is called into question by the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to make a decision on the future of the Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness. [34901]

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we decided last Friday to dispose of most of Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness. My Department will retain a small enclave to provide facilities for Defence Evaluation and Research Agency staff at New Ranges.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement, as the barracks have been under-used for a long time. Can he give me a clear assurance that he will work together with the local council to make sure that, as far as possible, this superb site is used to increase employment in Southend, where it is very much needed?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I thank him for all the work that he has done to push us forward to this conclusion. I regret that it has taken so long. As my hon. Friend knows, there is no further defence use for the site. We will therefore establish a joint working party to consider all the options open to us. It will consist of the Ministry of Defence, Essex county council, Southend-on-Sea borough council and possibly English Heritage. I am happy to give my hon. Friend all the assurances that he seeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the sale of armed forces' married quarters. [34902]

The Government are committed to providing decent quarters for service families and to maintaining military communities which provide service families with security and support. The sale will enable us to spend money on improving the condition of the houses and will progressively remove from us the burden of empty properties.

Why does the Secretary of State think that the Royal British Legion does not know what it is talking about when it says that the Conservative party's proposal to sell off the homes of the families of members of the armed forces

"demonstrates ignorance of service people's real needs"?

We obviously have a need to explain this policy carefully to all those who have an interest. Ministers will be meeting the Royal British Legion to make sure that it is explained. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the chiefs of staff, who are concerned with the needs of the armed forces today, are supportive of the policy, and publicly so. That is because they know that it is in the interests of service families, that there is no other way in which we could spend £100 million on improving the properties in which our service families live today and that the safeguards that have been put in place are rigorous.

Does my right hon. Friend find it rather surprising that there should be so much ado about a scheme which will provide better married quarters for service personnel? Will he confirm that there is no other way in which £100 million could have been spent on upgrading the majority of service homes to grade 1 condition in five years? Does he accept that the cause of good accommodation for the services should be one that unites rather than divides the House of Commons?

I agree with that. I know that, when my right hon. Friend held responsibility in the Ministry of Defence, he wrestled with this question and came to a conclusion similar to my own—that the sort of money needed to improve the quality of the housing could be released only by this method. I believe that it will enable the Ministry of Defence to take a much clearer view of the way in which the housing estate should be managed—that is to say, to make sure that we have the right sort of properties in the right place at the right time and that when we dispose of properties, which is something that we need to do, we pay more attention to preserving the integrity of military communities.

Does the Secretary of State not realise how much anguish, concern and worry this ill-thought-out scheme has caused the families of our service men and women? Does he not yet appreciate how important it is for the peace of mind of men and women serving abroad that their families are safe and secure back here in Britain? Will he not, even at this eleventh hour, look at this scheme again, follow the suggestion of the Royal British Legion and announce a postponement of the scheme pending a full review?

No, I do not think that that is a good idea. It is not an ill-thought-out scheme and has not been put together in a hurry; it is something about which the Government have been thinking for a matter of years. The proposals in their present form have been communicated to people since last November; there has been a lot of time for people to think about them. My Ministers and I have been rigorous in explaining the scheme's details. I regret that some people have been caused unnecessary anxieties and have been led to hold fears about the scheme that simply should not arise from it. While I entirely agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that it is extremely important to allay the fears of families, particularly when the service person may be serving abroad, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to add to those concerns and anxieties unnecessarily.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received in support of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. [34903]

The contribution made by the United Kingdom's independent nuclear forces to overall deterrence and security in Europe continues to be widely recognised, including by our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to read recent reports that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have suddenly become strong supporters of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent? Does not the picture of former members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament thrusting forward to put their finger on the nuclear button strain credulity to breaking point?

I confess that I am at a complete loss to understand it. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition was a determined opponent of nuclear weapons while we faced the Soviet Union, but is now strongly in favour of them. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition has not seen fit to give the House an explanation of his change of view. My hon. Friend is too generous to the Opposition: as I understand the position, the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of pushing the button, the defence spokesman has said clearly that he would not be in favour of pressing the button and the shadow Foreign Secretary has said that he is glad that the decision would not be for him. If a decision were to be made by a Labour Cabinet, the Prime Minister of that Labour Government would be in favour of using the nuclear option, the Defence Secretary would be against it and the Foreign Secretary would leave the Cabinet Room to wash his hands.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Ministry of Defence is in talks with the French Ministry of Defence about nuclear collaboration? Can he further confirm that British war planes will fly down the Champs Elysées on Sunday to salute the French revolution and its slogan of liberty, equality and fraternity? Many people in this country are glad that the Ministry of Defence is the most pro-French and pro-European Ministry—in practice, if not in rhetoric.

I am pleased to find that the French have the most pro-British Ministry of Defence. President Chirac has again and again paid compliments to British armed forces, to the defence costs studies, to the way that we have gone about reforming our armed services. He has said on a number of occasions that he wishes to remodel the French forces with an eye on the professionalism of the British forces. There is a good deal of admiration in this country for French forces; we admire them very much and we co-operated with them in Bosnia. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the feeling is mutual.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only have we won the argument about retaining a nuclear capability based on the Clyde in Scotland, where CND used to practise its marches and other activities, but we have demonstrated clearly that the Labour party is divided on the issue, defence is unsafe in its hands and it is unfit to govern?

We won not only the argument, but the cold war. We would not have won the cold war had we followed the policies of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which were supported by hundreds of Opposition Members and by the Leader of the Opposition. If today in eastern Europe hundreds of millions of people enjoy freedom and if today in Russia people are voting for their Government in a democratic state, those hundreds of millions of people enjoying those freedoms owe nothing to the Labour party.

Does the Minister agree that

"Complete and general nuclear disarmament remains a desirable and ultimate goal"?

The British Government will continue to observe their obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which are to pursue in good faith measures towards nuclear disarmament.

Is not one of the key reasons for retaining and upgrading our nuclear weapons the real problem of the threat of nuclear proliferation, which, despite the fact that we have a treaty, is going on? Does he agree that what divides us from the Opposition is the fact that we will say to any potential enemy, "We are prepared to use these. Dare you at your own risk?" whereas they would say to a potential enemy, "We are not sure whether we might use these. Dare you? We are not sure. We might pack it in first"?

My hon. Friend is right. We have moved out of a cold war into an era when many dangers could be presented to this country and to her allies. This is not a time to lose nerve or to send uncertain signals. We have always made perfectly clear the fact that we have a nuclear deterrent, and that that means that, ultimately, we would be ready to use it in the defence of our country and of our allies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent in his Department on official hospitality in 1995–96. [34904]

During financial year 1995–96, my Department spent £5.105 million on official hospitality.

Oh!

Some of my colleagues seem to think that £5.1 million is a lot of money. Actually, the Minister has got the answer wrong, and it pays to come into this place knowing the answers to questions. The actual figure is £5,334,092.80, which represents a 9.62 per cent. increase on the figure for entertainment in 1994–95.

The hon. Gentleman jokes with us. The problem with political jokes is that sometimes they get elected, and he is the living embodiment of that. It is because of questions similar to the one he asks that we commissioned an independent report by Sir Peter Cazalet, which said last year that the level of entertainment carried out is probably about right.

Let me give my hon. Friend some free consultancy advice about MOD entertaining. Would it not be appropriate in the financial year 1996–97 to invite representatives of the Baltic states to Headquarters Allied Forces North-West to see how Norway has been a first-class member of NATO without allowing the stationing of foreign troops or nuclear weapons on its soil? Could this not be a useful precedent for the enlargement of NATO, and a good use of taxpayers' money?

I agree with my hon. Friend that Norway is a first-class member of NATO. He raises an important point, which is that, overseas, perhaps more than in the United Kingdom, entertainment is used as a normal method of doing business. The majority of our overseas posts could not operate nearly as effectively in the United Kingdom's interest without taking part in the social activities that are involved. The entertainment is therefore worth every penny that we spend on it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to dispose of the site of the former Princess Alexandra RAF hospital at Wroughton. [34906]

The site will be sold on the open market later this year.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, although I could not hear it. Is he aware that, since the MOD left the RAF hospital at Wroughton, virtually no maintenance of the site has been undertaken? As a result, the grass is now very high and represents a distinct fire hazard to all those who live in the neighbourhood. Could he arrange for something to be done about that? Does he recollect his promise to me in the House last year that, if the RAF hospital were closed, the service to my constituents would not deteriorate? Does he realise that there is now a £2 million shortfall in the money needed to continue to give my constituents a proper health service? Will he therefore join me in making representations to the Department of Health to ensure that those with that responsibility match up to it and improve the service by reintroducing the £2 million that has been lost?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the matter in the first part of his question. Vacated buildings deteriorate quickly, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall have the matter dealt with at once. On the funding of the local NHS trust and other matters, which I well remember my hon. Friend raising with me, I regret that he should find himself in that position, and I shall draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health so that he may see what we can do to help.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in co- ordinating the training and control of the medical services of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. [34907]

The Surgeon General is satisfied that the reorganisation of the defence medical services is progressing well.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there has inevitably been turbulence as the medical services of the Army, Navy and Air Force are moved to the Royal hospital, Haslar, in my constituency? Does he share my hope that there will be some stability in future? Will he make a progress statement on the medical college's move to HMS Dolphin, adjoining the Royal hospital, Haslar?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. I endorse his view that bringing the three medical services together under one roof inevitably involves a change of culture, and there has been some turbulence. The House can take great satisfaction from the extraordinarily clever and able way in which the medical services have handled themselves in Bosnia. No decision has yet been reached on the college's move from Millbank to HMS Dolphin, although I have noted the splendid case put forward by my hon. Friend, which I am sure is receiving detailed attention. I look forward to giving him what I hope will be positive news later in the year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he has had with defence contractors and their employees to discuss the procurement programme. [34908]

My right hon. Friend and I have frequent meetings with defence contractors and take the opportunity of visiting the many excellent UK companies that support the armed forces, such as Pains Wessex in my hon Friend's constituency, which I visited last week.

We were grateful for my hon. Friend's visit to that important company in my constituency. Will he bear in mind that there are some 400,000 jobs in the defence manufacturing industry and that, apart from providing the best possible equipment for the best services in the world, those jobs depend on our export market, not least to our important friends and allies such as Saudi Arabia and many other countries around the world?

My hon. Friend is right: we are doing well in defence exports. We do not want our defence exports to be stifled by the dead hand of regulation and we do not need defence diversification agencies, such as would be imposed by the Labour party. For example, Pains Wessex—the company that I visited recently—has been diversifying and, over the past few years, it has reduced its dependency on defence from 70 per cent. to 50 per cent. yet, at the same time, its defence business has grown.

In the Minister's discussions with defence contractors, has he considered the possibility of the United States Government going to war and commandeering the assets of United States companies, which would include the assets of the Devonport dockyard? Those assets could be used for the war effort of the United States against the will of the British Government.

No, Madam Speaker.

Will my hon. Friend assure hon. Members that he is doing everything in his power to promote British exports overseas, particularly the excellent EH101 helicopter, which is now flying and has great potential in the export market?

Yes, it is an excellent helicopter, and I take every opportunity to tell people how excellent it is. The Government, in conjunction with Italy, have spent a great deal of money to develop one of the best medium helicopters in the world. I thank my hon. Friend for his support in this regard.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the extent of overstretch in the armed forces. [34910]

The armed forces are working extremely hard to meet their operational and training tasks. I am confident that our armed forces are robustly configured, well equipped and well able to meet their varied commitments around the world.

British forces are overstretched throughout the world. Will the Minister explain why there is a shortfall of 4,000 men in the armed forces? Will he also explain the Government's incompetent handling of our defence forces?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman mastered the brief that he was given. He asked why there is a shortfall of 4,000 men. There are many reasons, which I rehearse at every Defence questions, and I do not propose to go through them again. We believe that we handle defence matters very well, and many Governments abroad share our belief. That is marked out, for example, by the decision of the French Government to remodel their forces entirely on the English model.

Does my hon. Friend agree that search and surveillance are of the utmost importance to our defence industry? On that basis, what plans does he have to upgrade the maritime patrol aircraft?

Yes, I agree that they are important matters. The Government hope that the discussions will come to a conclusion shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on domestic production of his Department's land mine policy. [34911]

My Department's land mine policy will have no significant effect on domestic production.

Will the Minister confirm that he intends to modernise Britain's stockpile of anti-personnel mines? It does not matter whether he does that by creating a domestic capacity or by purchase from abroad, it will run counter to his stated policy of discouraging the production and use of land mines worldwide. Is not this a case of the Government saying one thing and doing another?

We have taken no decision to modernise the stockpile. If—contrary to our wish for a global ban on land mines—it becomes necessary to modernise the stockpile, we will take that decision later. In those circumstances, it would be better if we had land mines that self-destruct and therefore are of less danger to civilians, instead of the land mines that we have at present that do not.

While I recognise that the sale of non-self-destructing land mines is an evil, is it not the case that our exports of arms is 19 per cent. of the world market?

Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire is on his feet.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is it not also the case that Britain is second only to America in exporting arms? Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about hospitality—

Order. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are British parliamentarians and should be respected as such, not treated as Roman gladiators. Does not the House agree? Carry on.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for enabling me to ask the longest question I have ever asked. Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about hospitality demonstrated that the Labour party has no interest in jobs and that that is just one of the new dangers of new Labour?

I agree.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who made the decision that certain land in Bosnia could be used for target practice by UK forces. [34912]

The land to which the hon. Member refers is being used as a range for essential training of all troop contributors under an agreement between the implementation force and the local Bosnian Croat authorities.

Can the Minister confirm that the land around Glamoc is a plateau that used to be occupied by Serbian villagers but was cleared by Croats? Does he feel that there is something obscene about peacekeeping forces using such cleared lands for target practice and further exploiting land that has been war-torn and divided enough?

No, I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Public safety on firing ranges, wherever they are, is a matter for highest priority. The troops are undergoing essential training to enable them to carry out their mission which, as I am sure the whole House will agree, has been an extraordinary and exceptional triumph.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34927]

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.

Does the Prime Minister agree that one part of the historic greatness of President Mandela is that he is prepared to forgive and forget the collusion of the Tory Government at the time of apartheid because he knew that, in his struggle against an evil system, he had the overwhelming support of the British people?

President Mandela is a very welcome guest to the United Kingdom as President of the Republic of South Africa and I look forward to my talks with him tomorrow. I enjoyed my visit to South Africa and our discussions then, and I have no doubt that the President will be given a warm and friendly reception in this country by everyone he meets.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the headmaster of the London Oratory school in Fulham—a school well known for its ability to attract the brightest pupils from all over London—recently said that, if Labour won the election, he would consider taking his school private? What advice does the Prime Minister have for parents of children at the school, apart from the obvious advice to vote Conservative?

All parents at every school will be concerned about the quality of education in their school, and I am sure that that also applies to the London Oratory.

Given the Chancellor's admission today that there will be an extra £12 billion of borrowing this year and next—double last year's forecast—what is the Prime Minister's explanation for the appalling state of the public's finances?

I find the right hon. Gentleman's question astonishing. If he had read the economic forecasts this morning, he would have read of better economic prospects in this country than in any country across the European Union, and better economic prospects than we have known for many years. Those prospects could not have been obtained other than by following the policies that we have followed in recent years.

When the Prime Minister reads out his list of statistics, perhaps he will also confirm that Britain has a higher inflation rate than many of its main competitors—it has higher interest rates than France, Germany, the United States or Japan—and that it is the only country anywhere in the European Union, apart from Spain, to be running a trade deficit, despite the 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he promised that he would cut public sector debt, but that it has doubled under his stewardship of the public finances, and that we now spend £25 billion a year servicing that debt—more than on law and order and more than on defence?

I think that everyone in the House will wonder why, on every conceivable occasion, the right hon. Gentleman wants to run down the country's performance. I shall tell him what is happening: we have the lowest levels of inflation for 50 years—an achievement never remotely matched by any Labour Government—the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, four years of falling unemployment and growing employment, and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. Furthermore, the debt ratio is lower than it was in 1979—unlike in France, Germany and every other G7 country. That is the impact of the Government's policies since 1979, and it is unmatched by anything that the Labour party ever remotely achieved in office.

Madam Speaker, he does not deny a single fact that was put to him: that his forecasts have been wrong or that job creation and employment growth over the past 10 years have been lower in Britain than in any of the 10 main world economies. No Government—Labour or Conservative—have ever had £120 billion in North sea oil and squandered it or sold off every asset that the public owned and blown the money. Is it not true that, having promised that he would cut tax, he raised it; and having promised that he would cut borrowing, he raised it? Is not the lesson that, just as the Tories are untrustworthy and incompetent over tax, they are untrustworthy and incompetent over the state of the nation's finances?

I note—as will people here and abroad—the way in which, on every conceivable occasion, the Leader of the Opposition tries to sell this country short. I remind him that the economy is in the fifth successive year of sustainable growth. Since the last election, we have enjoyed the strongest recovery of any major European country.

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, in Sheffield yesterday a Yorkshire and Humberside regional assembly was set up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of councils is to look after local interests and not to set up offices in Brussels or create regional assemblies?

I see no justification for regional assemblies and more bureaucracy. That may be the policy of the Labour party, but it is neither the wish of the electorate nor the policy of the Government.

The day after it appears that ethnic cleansing has come once again to Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister emphasise to all he sees that those who wish to widen conflict only serve the purposes of the IRA and help those who wish to revert to violence rather than peace?

I hope that the whole House will join me in condemning the scenes of violence that we have observed across Northern Ireland in the past couple of days. They are indefensible. The search for peace in Northern Ireland will not be assisted by such behaviour, but it could well be put back. In my judgment, that is emphatically not the wish of the people of Northern Ireland. At the moment, we need dialogue to ensure that we can move forward from the present situation, which is doing nothing but causing misery, hardship and damage. We need that dialogue speedily so that a resolution can be reached without delay.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Benefits Agency in Lancaster on a combined operation which has netted tens of thousands, if not millions, of pounds in fraudulent benefit claims? Those people are now saving the taxpayer huge sums that can be devoted to proper causes.

I willingly congratulate those involved in that development. Perhaps I might add the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has put in place the most comprehensive anti-fraud devices in the social security system that we have had at any stage.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34928]

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

Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why this country is up to its neck in debt? The national debt is £320 billion and the public sector borrowing requirement is £30 million, yet the same team can turn the Tory party debt of £17 million two years ago into a £20 million profit this year. Where did they get the money, and will they publish their accounts?

The hon. Gentleman talks about the same team. Since I became Prime Minister, the national debt has averaged 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. Under the previous Labour Government, it was 62 per cent. of GDP.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the Union's relations with those west European states which decided not to join the Union. [34929]

I have no plans to do so.

As the remaining three nations outside the EU have very low unemployment—around 4 per cent. compared with the tragic and growing unemployment of around 20 million within the European Union, largely as a result of lunatic Brussels policies—will the Prime Minister, who has, happily, excluded Britain from some of the Euro-mess to the advantage of the nation and its people, ask the European Union at the intergovernmental conference to have another think about the future, especially in view of the nightmare of unemployment being created within the European Union which no one seems to want to talk about?

My hon. Friend is right about unemployment across the European Union, which is more than 18 million. There is no doubt that the primary responsibility of Governments across Europe is to try to create the conditions in which unemployment can fall and new jobs can be created. As my hon. Friend knows, I have always argued that the way in which to reduce unemployment in Europe is through the supply-side policies we have followed in this country, which are aimed at increasing the ability of companies to compete and to create new jobs.

rose—

Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a closed question. I call Mr. Stott.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he believes that one of Her Majesty's loyal chief constables had the right—

Order. I warned the hon. Gentleman, who should have read the Order Paper, that this was a closed question.

Norway was one of the countries that recently chose not to join the European Union. Is the Prime Minister aware that most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists said that there would be dire consequences for Norway if it did not join? Does he agree that most of the indicators have shown that, far from being disadvantageous, it has been in Norway's interest not to join? In view of that fact, what credit can we give most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists in this country who are urging us to join economic and monetary union?

The hon. Gentleman is comparing two separate things: first, whether Norway should join the European Union and, secondly, a particular subsequent development that may or may not take place in the European Union. If he sought the views of those in the United Kingdom who trade with Europe, he would find that surveys of leading business men have consistently shown that more than 90 per cent. favour membership of the European Union and do not see the European Union simply as a trading area. Each country must make its own judgments. Norway made its judgment, and we must respect that judgment, but it would be intolerable for the United Kingdom to be outside the European Union, in practice affected by its legislation but unable to have any say in framing it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34930]

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

My right hon. Friend will know of the importance of defence manufacturing in the north-west. Does he agree that—as thousands of employees in the industry await the contract for the replacement of maritime reconnaissance aircraft, among others—if we took the road to ruin and cut defence expenditure by £4.5 billion, as suggested by the Labour party, our action would devastate the industry in the north-west and cost thousands of skilled manufacturing jobs? Is this not yet another example of new Labour, new danger?

My hon. Friend makes his case very persuasively. Another £4.5 billion off defence—which is what the shadow Chancellor would like—would indeed have dramatic effects on the capacity of the armed forces to undertake their role. As for contracts, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, a decision will be announced as soon as we have completed our assessment of the bids for the replacement of various pieces of equipment that are now due for replacement. I hope that we shall be able to make announcements before too long, but a wide range of factors remain to be considered.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34931]

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

Will the Prime Minister join me—along with, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—in sending heartfelt concern to the families of those who were injured during the dreadful attack on the Wolverhampton school? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to give our children the protection that they richly deserve?

The whole House will have been appalled by the incident at St. Luke's school, and I have no doubt that everyone in the House and beyond will wish to send sympathy to the victims of that attack and hopes for their speedy recovery. The hon. Gentleman's sentiments will be shared not only by the Government but by everyone in the House, and I shall ensure that they are carried into effect.