To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of the Defence Export Services Organisation. [18035]

The Defence Export Services Organisation helps the United Kingdom defence industry to export its products and services. Provisional figures show that Britain's defence exporters achieved around 25 per cent. of the world market in 1996, attracting more than £5 billion to this country.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that excellent news. Does he agree that, put in a different way, that means that Britain's defence exports have increased by 50 per cent. in the past two years? Does he also agree that it is hard for any other sector or country to match that success story? There is another perspective, however. Does he agree that 360,000 jobs in the defence industry could be put at risk by the Opposition's defence review—their cut-and-slash programme to cut defence spending by £5 billion, which would undercut our defence procurement and defence sales?

Everything my hon. Friend says is right. First, it is indeed the case that, in 1994, our share of defence export sales was 16 per cent. of the world market and that today it is 25 per cent., so there has been a 50 per cent. increase. I cannot think of any other industry that has matched that performance, either in this country or elsewhere. My hon. Friend is also right that we can have that level of defence export sales only if we have reliable home markets. The Labour party is now committed to a defence review with, as its spokesman said, all the painful consequences that would follow. Every time we have challenged Opposition spokesmen to say whether one project or another would be exempted from that review, we have been denied any answer, so we must assume that all defence projects are at risk from Labour's defence review. If our home orders are at risk, obviously our export sales are at risk too.

How can the Minister justify subsidising arms manufacturers who sell weapons of death to the most odious dictators, who use them against their own people—as was done in Indonesia, where hundreds of thousands of people from East Timor were murdered?

We carefully observe the United Nations and European Union embargoes. Our country has one of the strictest regimes in the world for the control of arms sales. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it so clear that, in the event of there being a Labour Government, many Labour Members would like the industrial success story to be choked off. They would like jobs to be lost in Britain, not because of anything that the UN says or any treaty that we have entered into, but because of their political bigotry towards other countries.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, at our last defence debate, 21 Labour Members were against all arms exports and defence sales of any sort? Their policies would be extremely damaging right across the board to the jobs to which he referred.

My right hon. Friend is right as far as he goes, but the number was as low as 21 only because the frighteners had been put on tens of others. In previous years, a far higher number of Labour Members have said that they wanted to ban defence export sales and were in favour of unilateralism and cutting our defence budget. Each year, the frighteners are put on them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the estimated establishment of the Royal Air Force at 1 April 1999. [18036]

The requirement for trained Regular uniformed manpower for 1 April 1999 is forecast to be 52,200.

Does the Minister agree that, under the Conservatives, the Royal Air Force has received a 40 per cent. cut? Is not that the true legacy of the Tory Government?

That is a fluent and telling question: the hon. Gentleman is clearly well on top of the subject and has a deep knowledge of matters relating to the Royal Air Force. Of course, he is completely wrong: the Royal Air Force has had to go through a difficult period and has reconfigured itself for the new world order, to deal with the challenges that will face it, in common with all our allies and, indeed, our foes. All armed forces have been through a period of downsizing, but the Royal Air Force remains the benchmark against which all other air forces in the world judge themselves. It is highly rapidly deployable and extremely well equipped.

May I remind my hon. Friend that 1 April 1999 will be the 81st anniversary of the foundation of the Royal Air Force and the second anniversary of the absorption by the Royal Auxiliary Air Force of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, forming a Reserve force that will be capable of expansion in time of war and extremely cost-effective in time of peace? Will it not, in short, be an 81st anniversary of which the founder of the Royal Air Force, Lord Trenchard, would be proud? It will be a good basis for taking the service to a glorious future in the next century.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is of course completely right. As he knows, because he spoke in the Royal Air Force debate, I announced on that occasion our intention to recruit up to 60 Reservist air crew over the next two years and that the training of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force helicopter support squadron was going well. We shall consider all possible ways of expanding and enhancing the role of the Reserves in the Royal Air Force.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many works of art are missing from his Department's art collection; and if he will make a statement. [18037]

As a result of inadequate record keeping and controls in the past, 105 works of art are missing from my Department's collection. New control procedures have been introduced and efforts continue to try to find the missing works.

I did not realise that there were so many art lovers among the armed forces. I thought that their job was to go around shooting at people, not nicking paintings. The National Audit Office identified 190 pictures as stolen or missing. Is the Minister telling us that some have been recovered? Where were they recovered from? He said that efforts were being made. Will he describe those efforts? For example, has he been visiting Ministers' pieds-à -terre to see whether any paintings have ended up there? Why does not he declare an amnesty so that we can at least recover the paintings, which are worth something like £100,000 of taxpayers' money?

It beats me how the hon. Gentleman, of all people, has the gall to ask such a question. It was he who in 1986 purloined £50,000 worth of silver from the Greater London council. He asks where I have been looking: I should have been looking in his loft, which is where the GLC silver ended up. It absolutely astonishes me that he has the gall to ask that question.

My hon. Friend knows that only the best security can protect works of art, as the Public Accounts Committee investigation proved. Is he aware that the artefacts that disappeared from county hall during the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) have still not been recovered? Only code marking could have ensured their recovery.

My hon. Friend is no doubt right, although I have not kept track of the GLC silver; perhaps I should have. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should instigate a search of his loft so that he can tell us what has happened.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the defence industry's output was exported in the last year for which figures are available. [18038]

Although definitive output figures are not available, I estimate that, in the recent past, the percentage of defence goods exported was in the region of 35 per cent. That represents an outstanding success for British industry, and one that is envied worldwide.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that a large number of British jobs emanate from defence exports, that there is the most rigorous scrutiny of British export contracts, and that no British export is made in contravention of European Union or United Nations embargoes?

I confirm what my hon. Friend says. We have probably the most rigorous control of exports of any nation. We export responsibly and we shall continue to export responsibly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House that we take 25 per cent. of world market share—an astonishing achievement. Those exports bring many benefits to Britain, not only in jobs, but in increased influence overseas and in the reduction of costs to the Ministry of Defence in buying equipment. If we were to put those jobs at risk by introducing a strategic defence review, we would undermine the stability of the defence industry and damage not only jobs but our influence and MOD costs. We must be careful about that as we move towards a general election.

Is the Minister aware of the proposed closure of IMI Yorkshire Alloys in my constituency and in Smethwick? That company contributes to defence exports and sells directly to the US Navy and to others. Its products are not made by any other company in Britain. Our position will suffer a net loss if the proposed closure goes ahead. Will he look into the closure and its strategic significance for the defence industry to ascertain whether he can make any suggestions to help those who want at least some part of the company to remain in existence?

I was not aware of that proposed closure. We deeply regret job losses following the closure of any part of the defence industry. In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I shall look into the matter in the way that he suggests.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while the defence industry is important to the nation as a whole, it is of particular importance to the north-west of England, in respect of both the defence and aerospace industries? Has he a message for the many thousands of people in the north-west whose jobs and livelihoods depend on the continuance of present defence policies about the attitudes of the Government and the Opposition to the defence industry?

I do have a message. The defence industry of the north-west is very valuable, and the Government recognise its value. Our defence industry is successful because of the policies that the Government have followed. We have followed policies of competition and privatisation, both of which the Labour party abhors. We have followed policies that improve exports and we have provided stable defence funding. We do not want a strategic defence review that would undermine defence exports and the strength of our defence industry. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the industry in the north-west.

Does the Minister agree that overseas sales depend on orders in the home market? If so, is it not a shame that he did not think about that when ordering the Army field ambulance? We had to mount a massive campaign to save it for Land Rover from the Austrians. Does the Minister comprehend that his comments and those of the Secretary of State will be widely welcomed in Paris, Los Angeles, Fort Worth and anywhere our competitors seek to create uncertainty and to undermine Britain's position? This close to a general election, why does he not stop playing party political games and start backing Britain's defence industry? It all goes to show: "You can't trust the Tories on defence."

it says here. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question lies in his own hands. If he is complaining about uncertainty, perhaps he can tell us which of the projects that we have ordered would be exempted from his defence review. For instance, will the replacement maritime patrol aircraft, the Nimrod 2000, be exempted from the defence review? No? I take it, then, that it would not be exempted. Instead of exempting certain elements from a defence review, a more responsible attitude would be to recognise the long-lasting damage that the entire review would do to our British defence industry, and to abandon it lock, stock and barrel.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recommendations arising from "Options for Change" are yet to be implemented.[18039]

All the restructuring arising from "Options for Change" has been completed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our services have dealt admirably with the changes that have resulted from "Options for Change"? Does he agree that a peace dividend can be spent only once, and that we have spent it? The last thing our services need is a review such as the one threatened by the Labour party, should it form the next Government. We all know what a review means: it is new Labourspeak for cuts, cuts and yet more cuts which would savage our services and wreck procurement jobs in the north-west and elsewhere, decimating defence manufacturing industry in this country.

My hon. Friend speaks with real feeling because jobs are at risk in his constituency and in other constituencies throughout the country. He is absolutely right to say that the armed forces led through the "Options for Change" exercise—and led brilliantly. That enabled our armed forces to adapt to change better than those of any other country. That has now been done; we are now adapted to the new world in which the cold war is over.

That is priceless, coming from the man who instigated the biggest cut in, and the most shambolic continual restructuring of, the armed forces every year for the past decade. Does he realise that any review that we carried out, unlike his efforts, would start by involving the chiefs of staff? Unlike his, it would guarantee two years of financial stability, as we have already made clear. Unlike his, it would interleave foreign affairs and defence, giving us some form of strategy. And unlike him, we would avoid the annual big-bang restructuring.

The hon. Gentleman leads with his chin. He has no authority whatsoever from the shadow Chancellor or from the Leader of the Opposition to say that there will be stability under a Labour Government. He has authority to say only that there will be a defence review, and that is why at no time will any Labour Member say what we need to hear: that any of the projects that this Government have ordered are exempt from the defence review. They will not say it because they are not authorised to do so—they are under the thumb of the shadow Chancellor and of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition wrote in The Daily Telegraph that it would be dishonest to claim that Labour would restore defence to its former level, so the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) should not risk being dishonest with the House today.

The necessary changes in "Options for Change" were designed to achieve lower manpower levels but ensure that that manpower had the best equipment available in the world at that time, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which that programme has been carried through. I was struck by one particular feature during the period in which the changes were introduced—I was conscious of the united concern of Conservative Members that our defences might be put at risk. Is he aware that, in contrast, no such concern was expressed by Labour Members? All we heard was exactly what we have heard repeated this afternoon—Labour Members pleading for individual equipment orders and pretending that they are in favour of defence, but actually calling for cuts in overall expenditure on every possible occasion.

The strategy conceived by my right hon. Friend has been carried through with great success, and I pay tribute to him for that. We in this country have been willing to undertake difficult changes involving the reduction of numbers and the reduction of the number of bases from which we operate. As a result, we have been able to put more and more money into defence equipment. A rising proportion of the defence budget goes into the sort of equipment that would enable Britain to triumph in future conflicts. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, throughout that period, he faced legitimate concern from Conservative Back Benchers and no concern from Labour Back Benchers, and that it is the same today. I have been sustained during my two years as Secretary of State for Defence by the tremendous support that I have had from behind me. Any Labour Secretary of State for Defence would know that what his Back Benchers wanted was savage defence cuts to bring us down to the European average—but Britain is not of the European average.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current establishment of the Army. [18040]

The current trained manpower establishment of the Regular Army, including Gurkhas but excluding the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service element), is around 106,000.

Is it not true that the Minister spent £500 million and reduced the Army by 50,000, but wound up with a 5,000 shortfall? How did the Minister get misled into such a muddle?

I saw the hon. Gentleman being given a run-through of his question—he did not look overly confident then or as he asked it. He is correct when he says that the Army is currently under strength by 5,339 men and women; however, I have some bad news for him, which means that there is good news for the Army. The Army has already recruited 664 officers from a target of 730 for the year and 13,650 soldiers from a target of 15,100—a 50 per cent. increase on the year. We are devoting huge and valuable resources to recruiting; we have a lot more to do and the hon. Gentleman may be assured that we will do it. The Government are hugely proud of the Army. We have throughout had the clear objective that the Army should be brilliantly trained and properly equipped for future wars and operations, and I am glad to say that that is now the case.

Will my hon. Friend give me the assurance this afternoon that the Cheshire Regiment is safe under a Conservative Government, and that there is every chance that the Cheshire Regiment would be in jeopardy under the review that the Labour party would carry out?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. No cap badge in the British Army would be immune from the type of defence review that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) plans; indeed, the hon. Gentleman has already said that such a review would not be free of pain.

The Secretary of State is aware of the difficulties for young soldiers patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland, and of the brutal murder by the IRA of Stephen Restorick. Bearing that in mind, does he agree that, difficult as it is for soldiers in Northern Ireland, it is extremely important that at all times they do not inadvertently in some way act as recruiting sergeants for the Provisional IRA in their treatment of young people in the streets?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valuable point. In my judgment, the British Army's conduct in Northern Ireland during the past 25 years will be one of the most glorious chapters in the annals of this country's military history. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the British Army has comported itself with great discipline, great skill and great courage on the streets of Belfast, and I wholly endorse exactly what he said.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it has always been more difficult to recruit for the Army at times of prosperity and falling unemployment? Will he accept my congratulations on the superb advertising campaign run by the Adjutant-General in cinemas and elsewhere? Will he take it from me that, on my last visit to the Army careers office in Salisbury, it was up to target and recruitment was going very well indeed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—as always—for his support for the armed forces and the Army in particular. I agree entirely that the recent advertising campaign has been a great success. It has won many awards in this country and abroad and we are extremely pleased with it.

Why cannot the Minister accept that although, since the last general election, the Government have spent £500 million on recruitment schemes and £1.5 billion on making service people redundant, he still manages to get it all wrong, with a shortfall of more than 5,000 in the Army alone? Does not he personally accept responsibility for that fiasco, or is it all the fault of some nameless civil servant?

No, it is not the fault of a nameless civil servant; it is the result of a combination of circumstances and events. Recently, we have been in a demographic trough. When the Government came to power, one in eight young people went on to further and higher education; now, one in three do. We are fishing in a much smaller pool, and we need to work much harder to get the high-quality young men and women we need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the services' cadet forces. [18041]

The cadet forces continue to play a sterling role in the nation's voluntary youth movement, giving young people their first experience of the armed forces and their way of life and encouraging the development of such qualities as self-reliance, self-confidence and good citizenship.

We in Hereford are proud to have active units of the Navy, Army and Air Force cadets, which are using service concepts of training and discipline to give young people experience and to develop their powers of leadership and responsibility. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the many thousands of volunteer adults who give up their time to lead training activities?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In this respect, Hereford is no different from many other parts of the country. Cadet forces are booming and are playing a vital role in the community. I am glad to hear that they are doing so in my hon. Friend's constituency. I willingly join him in paying a warm and wholehearted tribute to the thousands of adult volunteers, including parents, who freely give of their time to enable young people to acquire the important skills that they learn in the cadet forces. The future of the cadet forces hinges entirely on our being able to attract high-quality volunteers.

How will the Minister help the excellent HMS Tuscan in my constituency? Is he aware that when I recently gave awards to this superb unit at Connah's quay dock it was clear to me that the building in which it operated was in urgent need of refurbishment? It was especially in need of efficient heating. Will the Minister assist by supporting my application, and that of the unit, to the national lottery's small charities sector so that the urgent need for heating can be met?

The hon. Gentleman is a loyal champion and supporter of the armed forces. I shall gladly support his project in whatever way I can. He is a regular visitor to the Ministry of Defence and if he would like to talk to me about the matter, I shall be happy to see him.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that members of the cadet forces will continue to be able to shoot at targets with full-bore weapons?

I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance and I am grateful to him for raising the matter. It would be unthinkable for the cadets not to be taught to shoot properly and to learn the disciplines that relate to weapons and the respect that must be shown in skill-at-arms training. Cadets without weapons would constitute a pointless and meaningless operation. We shall ensure that they are properly equipped and properly taught in the vital disciplines that will do so much for them in later life.

If the cadet forces are, to use the Minister's word, "booming" and are increasing in numbers, what is being done about the necessary increase in the number of rifles, and particularly the security of the armouries in which rifles are kept? Do the cadet forces have the wherewithal to offer the security that, post-Dunblane, people obviously need and want?

I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the proper security of weapons. I assure him that the Ministry of Defence takes the matter extremely seriously. We are satisfied that our arrangements for the security of weapons are adequate; indeed, they are excellent and are regularly reviewed. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. More cadets are learning to shoot, and in learning that skill they will use deactivated rifles. They will use full-bore rifles only when firing on ranges.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the defence budget in the next three years he plans to spend on defence equipment. [18042]

Expenditure on equipment in the current financial year is estimated to be 39 per cent. of the defence budget. On current plans, this percentage will increase steadily over the next three years.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Amphenol in my constituency on being the largest and most successful manufacturer of electrical connectors for the defence industry throughout Europe? Does not this go beyond the constituency point? Are not companies such as Amphenol playing a vital part in maintaining our defence base? Would not Labour's threatened defence review, which would turn companies' plans and their tooling up and design capability upside down, be just as bad for the companies concerned as it would be for the armed forces?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Amphenol, which is a valued supplier to the Ministry of Defence. We are delighted with the work that it has done for us. We have plans under a Conservative Government to increase spending on major defence equipment by 15 per cent. by the year 2000. That would be put at risk if it were not exempted from the strategic defence review proposed by the Opposition. Unless they can say that the Brimstone missile, the Storm Shadow missile and the Nimrod 2000 aeroplane will be exempt from the review, those projects will all be at risk. Britain cannot take that risk. We know not only that we cannot trust Labour on defence, but that the entire country cannot trust Labour on defence.

It is clear that the future of Britain's defence industry is at risk. I draw attention to the letter in the Financial Times this morning from senior industrialists, including the chief executive of British Aerospace, in which they express their concerns about the consequences of the Government's policies for industry, especially in their approach to Europe and the single market. Does the Minister agree that during the lifetime of the Government, the number of jobs in Britain's defence industry has halved, the Government's contribution has been cut by a third, the industry's success has been due to the industry, in spite of the Government's attempts to wreck it and the Government's— [Interruption]

Order. I have noticed today that responses from Ministers have been inordinately long. The hon. Lady will be heard in the House. Come to a conclusion, Ms Squire, but your final words will be heard. Come on.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—and the Government's refusal to work in partnership with the defence industry and draw up a strategy for a secure and long-term future?

No. The reason I do not agree is that the success of British industry has been shown by the fact that we have been able to take 25 per cent. of the world market share in the past year. That has been due to the competitive policies pursued by the Government, and to the fact that the Government and British industry have worked together to ensure that we succeed in exports. It is also due to the fact that we have privatised defence industry—privatisation that has been opposed every step of the way by the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of Eurofighter aircraft to be ordered by the Royal Air Force. [18043]

We will buy 232 Eurofighters to replace the Tornado F3 and the Jaguar. We may need more in future if Eurofighter proves to be the best replacement for other types of aircraft.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer today will be warmly welcomed by the Royal Air Force, and in particular by my constituents in Halton and at strike command? Does he share my fears that Labour's refusal to exempt the European fighter aircraft from its proposed defence review bodes ill for the future of the Royal Air Force?

It is dismaying that we have been through an entire Question Time and yet again Labour Front Benchers have been unwilling to say that any of the projects that have been mentioned—projects on which thousands of jobs and our armed forces depend—would be exempt from Labour's defence review. People will draw their own conclusions. The prospect should not be as discouraging as my hon. Friend suggests, because if people draw the right conclusions they will ensure that there is not a Labour Government.

May I make it crystal clear yet again that Labour is fully committed to Eurofighter and will order it in office? Why does the Secretary of State persist in playing party politics over Eurofighter—an aeroplane that is so vital for the RAF and for Britain's aerospace industry? Does he not understand that, by doing so, he is giving succour to Eurofighter's enemies at home and abroad, putting at risk thousands of jobs in Britain and threatening the country's security in years to come?

How many Eurofighters is the hon. Gentleman committed to? Is he committed to the stand-off missile, the amphibious assault ships and the frigates? Why does he not answer those questions? Why does he not tell us to what other projects he is committed? The British people know that he is not committed to those things, and they will draw their own conclusions.

What does my right hon. Friend think will be the painful consequences for Eurofighter, British Aerospace, Leyland Trucks and anyone else who provides defence equipment to our armed forces of a defence review as suggested by the Labour party?

After two months of internal struggle, today the Opposition defence spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), gave a half-hearted promise about Eurofighter that is not worth the paper that it is not written on. He said nothing about the replacement maritime patrol aircraft, the Leyland orders that my right hon. Friend mentioned or the amphibious assault ships, the missiles, the frigates or any of the other projects that the Government have ordered.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March. [18065]

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 parents everywhere will welcome today's publication of league tables for primary schools? Does he understand their very real anger at those who would deny them the right to know how their children's schools are performing? Whether or not schools are doing well, parents have an absolute right to know how their children and their local authorities are performing. We understand that, but Labour does not.

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the tables. For the first time, parents will have the information they need to help to choose the appropriate primary schools for their children.

In Orkney?

They do—

Order.

It is interesting to note that any prospect of choice or information is an appalling proposition for Opposition Members—no wonder they propose to do away with this information if they ever get the opportunity. The tables expose under-achievement and high truancy, and where they occur: in authorities run by the party of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

Is the Prime Minister aware of the correspondence from the Association of Meat Inspectors sent to Ministers and the Meat Hygiene Service that shows that, contrary to what we were told last week, serious concern about contamination was being expressed to Ministers and others over a nine-month period and that contamination in abattoirs is getting worse, not better? Those are serious allegations. Will the Prime Minister institute immediate inquiries and ensure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publishes a full account of the state of abattoirs, of what warnings were given to Ministers, and of what action was taken?

In the past few hours I have seen the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers since it attained some notoriety on the lunchtime media. I entirely share the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and the Association of Meat Inspectors to ensure the highest standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses. I am surprised by the contents of the letter for two reasons: first, I am surprised because the AMI is responsible for the enforcement of hygiene rules, and I understand that extra staff have been provided to the Meat Hygiene Service, including at least 250 staff who are responsible for inspection. Secondly, I am surprised because the vice-president of the Association of Meat Inspectors, who is a vet—unlike the general secretary to whose letter the right hon. Gentleman referred—said today that he is

"fully supportive of the Meat Hygiene Service and everything they have achieved in raising standards".

I thank the Prime Minister for that, but will he ensure that we are given a full account of exactly what was said to Ministers over that period of nine months and what the state of abattoirs is? Is there not an unanswerable case for ensuring that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not look after the interests of the industry and consumers together, and that we set up a proper, independent food standards agency that can look into these matters and monitor them on behalf of the public?

The right hon. Gentleman raises two important points. Let me try to answer him in some depth on both of them.

I thank the Prime Minister for that, but I would just point out to him that, in the letter written last Wednesday, the Association of Meat Inspectors said that

"far from being encouraged to enforce stricter hygiene standards, MHIs are being actively encouraged to ignore breaches of regulations and in some cases threatened if they try to take action".

I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman poses his question. Let me deal with the first part of it and what instructions were given to inspectors.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March. [18066]

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

Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the high level of investment in the electronics industry in central Scotland? Does he recognise the importance to that industry of manoeuvrability of components and products? Will he consider the requirements of fifth freedoms, which could benefit that industry, particularly by using Prestwick airport as a gateway?

As my hon. Friend will know, I visited Prestwick airport 10 days ago to look at its excellent cargo facilities. Granting fifth freedom rights to foreign airlines using Prestwick is attractive, provided United Kingdom airlines are given a fair opportunity to compete and there are matching rights for UK airlines overseas. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is aware of my hon. Friend's comments. I share my hon. Friend's belief that good transport links are vital to that success.

If, as the Government claim—

Welcome to the role of grandparent.

Yes, we hope that we shall be.

If it were not for the fact that we introduced this information, nobody would know precisely what was happening in schools. As to standards in secondary and primary schools, the fact is that, across the board, it is long-standing Conservative authorities that have the best results, certainly not Labour authorities. The 20 worst secondary schools and the 10 worst primary schools are in Labour authorities. The schools for which the right hon. Gentleman takes credit have been Conservative run for many years, and have only recently been run by the Liberal Democrats.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March. [18067]

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Chartered Insurance Institute on its centenary year, which is marked by a major international insurance conference at Westminster today? Are not Governments throughout the world increasingly turning to the private sector to help to meet long-term social costs? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a partnership between insurance companies and the state is the best way of ensuring that future generations can meet their pension needs?

If we wish to enshrine the welfare state for our children and our grandchildren, it is necessary to look again at how we can ensure that the provision that is made today is still affordable in years to come. That is why we produced the plans on basic pension plus. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday announced our partnership scheme for long-term care, and that is why further plans will be announced tomorrow. We are seeking to ensure that the welfare state is enshrined for the long term by taking decisions that every hon. Member knows need to be taken if we are to ensure the continuation and improvement of welfare provision.

As we are only three or four weeks away from the official start of the general election campaign, will the Prime Minister tell us whether, a few weeks before the last general election, the Conservative Government did a deal with the tobacco companies, in which several hundred hoardings were given to the Conservative party in return for an agreement that there would be no ban on tobacco advertising? Is that true? Will he confirm that that deal will not be done again?

I confirm that no deals are being done, although I have noticed one: the substantial advertising campaign by the trade unions. Those trade unions fund the Labour party when the deputy leader is not abroad raising funds for the party before denouncing the Conservatives, whom he claims do the same thing.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March. [18068]

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Church primary schools on their exceptional performance, as shown in the league tables that were published today? Is that not further and conclusive proof that traditional teaching methods, employed in an atmosphere in which achievement is expected and there are strict rules and discipline, are not only the most successful but the only proper methods?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the excellent performance of the Church primaries. About 60 of the 100 best-performing schools in the tables are either Church or grant maintained. They show the success of a policy of promoting choice and diversity in our education system if we wish to promote excellence.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 March. [18069]

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that, five years ago yesterday, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his Budget speech that he would not increase VAT on fuel? Are we not entitled to know now why the Government did not go ahead with that?

I think that we are entitled to know by what amount a windfall tax will add to the cost of fuel for people—and the cost of water, and the cost of all the other utilities. We are promised such a tax; we have not been given any information about the impact of that tax on either the consumer—

indicated dissent.

There is no point in the hon. Lady's shaking her head; this is the fact of the matter. We have not been given any information about the impact of the tax on either the consumer or the dividends of hundreds of thousands of investors in those industries.