To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in privatising the trust ports in Northern Ireland.

A proposal for a draft Order in Council, which would provide the necessary powers to enable any of Northern Ireland's trust ports to be privatised, is currently under preparation. It is scheduled for publication in the summer at which time all interested parties will have an opportunity to comment.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but will he ensure that the employees of the trust ports have an opportunity to purchase shares and partake in the wealth created, thereby furthering the Government's privatisation proposals and the extension of share ownership? Does he agree that those policies have constituted one of the successful planks of the social revolution in this country since 1979?

I can certainly confirm that it is our intention to ensure that the legislation contains proposals such as my hon. Friend suggested, just as there are in the legislation that applies to the rest of the country. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will oppose our present privatisation proposal with the same degree of enthusiasm that he opposed the privatisation proposals introduced on Monday. I doubt whether he will have an opportunity to meddle in the affairs of the Northern Ireland ports, but, were he to do so, as he comes from Wigan his knowledge of the pier might be of assistance.

What is the present level of grant paid to each of the port authorities in Northern Ireland? What change will be made to the level of grant paid to those ports which move from trust status to the private sector? When will we have a level playing field in Northern Ireland with fair competition between all ports?

We shall have a level playing field as long as the present Administration are able to continue their privatisation policy. The proposals adopted by the EC mean that 75 per cent. of grant is available to publicly owned or trust ports and, under the European regional development fund rules, 50 per cent. is available to privately owned ports. That is a matter for the EC and the Commission to decide, not the Government.

The Minister will have noted that other people have joined the anti-privatisation lobby in relation to electricity, as he will have discovered on Monday. There is great concern in Northern Ireland, especially following a report from a Committee of the House on land in the harbour region which was sold off cheaply when Harland and Wolff was privatised. Will the Minister assure the House that, whatever privatisation plans he has for the trust ports, there will be no recognition of those people who seem to have an interest in cashing in on the endeavours for their own ends?

The Government have an obligation to Parliament and to the taxpayer to ensure maximum proceeds from any privatisation of land. Whether that happens ultimately will be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee to judge. There is great potential in the land around the port in Belfast and it is important that, when that land is sold, it is sold to a company capable of developing it to the best advantage of the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total figure will be for new road schemes in the Antrim, South constituency for (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95.

Following an adjustment in planned expenditure, it is now intended to spent £0.5 million in 1993–94 on the construction of a slip road from the M2 motorway to ensure that it is in place when the new Antrim hospital opens. No expenditure will be incurred on major road schemes in the other two years.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very good reply. As he knows, the decision made at an earlier stage not to complete the slip road was considered to be ludicrous. Is he aware of the difficulties experienced on the part of the A26 that has not yet been dualled? Is he further aware that a number of patients from a wide area—indeed, from as distant as Larne—will be going to the hospital, meaning that good roads are essential to serve the hospital?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. My hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for health in Northern Ireland is not able to be here today because he is on duty in the Province. He and I have had a series of meetings about the provision of the slip road, and he reminded me of an undertaking that I had given when Minister responsible for health matters a few years ago. So together we moved heaven and earth to ensure, in a difficult year, that the necessary money was made available.

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the A26. He will be aware, bearing in mind the other pressures we have on the budget this year, how difficult it has been to get a higher priority for roads. So long as I am responsible for transport in Northern Ireland, I shall continue to fight that corner as best I can.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the staff resources available to the special branch of the RUC.

In the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, this information is confidential.

I accept the need for secrecy in the matter. Is the Minister satisfied that the present staffing levels are sufficient to carry out the necessary pre-emptive intelligence work? When will the agreed 441 new RUC people be recruited?

The Secretary of State announced in November, as my hon. Friend says, that the Chief Constable's request for 441 additional police officers would be met. The recruitment of those officers began immediately, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that more than 100 additional RUC and RUC reserve recruits were taken into training in December.

I am full of praise for the work that is being done by special branch in the RUC. Is the Minister aware that the best return for that good work is not being achieved in that shortcomings in the law allow the higher echelons of terrorist organisations—their command and control structures—to remain free to walk the streets with impunity, despite the fact that the RUC has provided high-grade intelligence about those people? Is he further aware that, in the wake of the Nelson trial, it is important to ensure that absolute primacy of the RUC in delivering law and order to the people of Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the compliment that he paid to the special branch and to the RUC. I am sure that it is shared on both sides of the House, as it is from the Dispatch Box. If the hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable expert in these matters, thinks that specific aspects of the law should be addressed, I shall be happy to hear from him.

Does the Minister agree that in any society, the public interest requires a system of law enforcement and justice that all can support and in which all can have confidence? Does he believe that that is possible in Northern Ireland, when some sections of the security services are colluding with terrorists, when they are using terrorists as agents while they are involved in terrorist activity and when some members of the security services are handing out confidential security documents as though they were pen-pal photographs? What changes will he and the Secretary of State demand so that the integrity of the law can be protected from some of those who are charged with enforcing it?

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, the latter part of which related to a court case that has not yet been concluded, so it would be inappropriate and imprudent of me to comment on it now. My answer to the first part of his question is that in the few weeks that I have had my present portfolio, two or three times in public I have stated my firm belief that it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, the police and the security forces—indeed, in the interests of all of us —that the law be applied even-handedly and that those responsible for applying the law should do so.

Can the Minister assure the House that he entirely supports the primacy of the police in all security matters? If so, will he now state to the House that the police are, and should always be, in control of all intelligence operations in Northern Ireland? So that all sections of the community can have confidence in the security forces, will the Government undertake to make a statement to the House after the conclusion of the Nelson case?

I have already made my position clear in regard to the Nelson case, and I have nothing more to add. As for the primacy of the police, the view of Ministers is that that is not in question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future prospects for the Northern Ireland economy.

Although Northern Ireland's economic prospects are closely linked to those of the rest of the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland economy has fared better than that of almost any other United Kingdom region in recent years. As the national economy moves out of recession, Northern Ireland is therefore well placed to take advantage of the economic upturn.

As the Minister says, the Northern Ireland economy is closely linked to that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Experience has tended to show that its pattern moves somewhat behind that of the United Kingdom in terms of time. The rest of the United Kingdom now seems to be beginning to move out of recession; is it not true that Northern Ireland is about to move deeper into it? Would the Minister care to comment on a recent report by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte—a firm of consultants on which the Government normally rely—which states that industrial output is likely to decline by between 2 and 4 per cent. this year, and that unemployment may increase by some 10,000 as a result?

That may have been true until the current recession, but the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about the present circumstances. Whereas in the past Northern Ireland was always the furthest point on the beach that the tide reached, and therefore the first point that it left, on this occasion we entered the recession later and weathered it better. The unemployment figures demonstrate that Northern Ireland was the only part of the United Kingdom that experienced no increase in unemployment; the Cambridge econometric forecast shows that last year it was the only region that experienced any growth, and that this year it is likely to be one of four regions that will experience growth.

Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte is probably the worst of a lot of very bad forecasters. For example, it forecast an increase in unemployment of 3,000 for 1986–87; in fact unemployment fell by 6,800. It forecast a decrease of 5,000 for 1987–88; in fact, the decrease was 7,800. It forecast a fall of 3,000 for 1988–89; the actual decrease was 9,500. Perhaps economic forecasters and consultants should consider the beam in their own eye before criticising the Government's figures.

My constituency has the second highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. Does not the Minister realise that the unemployment figures in the Province are deplorable? Young people face lengthening dole queues. Will the Minister tell the House and the people of the Province what measure he intends to take to assist people over 45 whose age condemns them to humiliating interviews and, indeed, rejection? Many of them have done excellent work in the past.

The Government's job training programme includes a series of measures to assist those over the age of 25, and to ensure that they can receive an element of training. The same applies to the young unemployed. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the unacceptable level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to convey a sense of complacency; I am merely saying that the Northern Ireland economy has done very much better in the latest recession—and would have done better still had it not been for the appalling IRA atrocities that make inward investment so difficult.

This was the first time that I have heard the Minister quote figures with any satisfaction. I clearly understood why when I heard how they confirmed his view of the economy in Northern Ireland. He is an isolated figure in the Government because he is the first Minister whom I have heard speak highly of the work of the Cambridge school. Perhaps he should get in step with the rest of the Government.

Does the Minister agree that if those projects that are partly funded by the European Community fund do not proceed this year, there is a danger that there will he some damage to the economy of Northern Ireland? Does he further accept that this arises from the Government's refusal to accept European Community rules on additionality? If he accepts both those propositions, what pressure is the Northern Ireland Office putting on the Government to conform to those European Community rules?

The Government have always abided by, and agreed with, the additionality rules as far as they apply to Northern Ireland. It is unacceptable to us that there should be any withholding of funds due to Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, those funds are of importance to us in the provision of our capital infrastructure, although they are not totally significant.

I can quote a final figure to the hon. Gentleman, as he enjoys my quoting figures. It is that, according to the Department of Employment figures, if the Labour party's economic proposals for a minimum wage were put into effect it would cost some 2 million jobs, of which 50,000 would be in Northern Ireland, where we have a large number of women workers in the clothing, textile and garment industries. The hon. Gentleman's advancement to the ministerial Dispatch Box would be a disaster for employment in Northern Ireland.

Will my hon. Friend further underline that the greatest; threat to the economic prosperity of both the Province and the Republic of Ireland is terrorism? Will he emphasise again and again that the victims of terrorism are not just those who are maimed, injured and killed but the many people who are put on the dole because terrorism deters investment from elsewhere in Europe?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All of us who have been involved in trying to increase employment in Northern Ireland know the damage that terrorism does to our chances of achieving that aim. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has, much more eloquently than I could, told us of the damage that it does and the effect that it has on the young people of Northern Ireland because it gives them a future of either migration or unemployment. That is the hideous hypocrisy of the IRA's campaign.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the funding of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

The total resources available to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in 1992–93 will be around £483 million. These substantial resources will enable the executive to continue the progress that it has made in recent years in improving housing conditions in Northern Ireland.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the cut of £19–9 million from £262 million in the 1992–93 budget is a dramatic reduction given that the proposal for the programme of building and house repairs in Northern Ireland agreed by the Government was already the lowest in the history of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive? Is he aware that there are 23,000 people on the waiting list—10,000 in urgent need—and that urban regeneration will be set back? Allied to this is the disastrous state of the building and construction industry. Can I encourage the Minister to do the double by restoring the funding so as to enable much-needed house building and repairs to go ahead, and at the same time give the necessary financial boost to the devastated building and construction industry?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the record of this Government on housing in Northern Ireland since 1979 is without parallel. Any visitors who come to the Province can see the quality of public housing in Northern Ireland. The urgent waiting list has reduced from some 18,800 in 1981 to 9,900 in 1991. The amount of new housing in Northern Ireland, as everyone can see, has changed the housing situation from one of the worst in Europe to one of the best in Europe. That does not mean that we do not still have problems in rural areas.

The hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government must order their priorities and he knows the extent of construction needed after buildings have been bombed. Therefore, we must all continue to point out that the bombing of houses, bridges and roads inevitably impacts on our ability to find funds elsewhere. The construction industry in Northern Ireland is not in a disastrous decline —private house building has maintained its growth rate and has the best record anywhere in the country.

A colossal number of Housing Executive dwellings in my constituency are in urgent need of renovation—I am thinking of the housing estates at Tullycarnet, Ballybeen, Groomsport, Bangor and Holyrood. May I urge the Minister to give sufficient funds to the Housing Executive to enable the work to go ahead without further delay?

I have explained to the hon. Gentleman why the funding for the Housing Executive is not as easy this year as it has perhaps been in former years. I take his point about maintenance and I shall of course draw it to the Housing Executive's attention. It is the Housing Executive's responsibility to determine how it spends the funds that the Government make available to it. I say again that in Northern Ireland the Housing Executive has spent a great deal more per capita than is the case elsewhere and that can be seen by anyone who visits public sector housing in Northern Ireland.

Will the Minister ensure that when the Housing Executive engages in new build it will incorporate in every scheme a large number of two-bedroomed bungalows and a number of houses especially built to cater for the needs of the disabled? That would allow a tremendous movement of people from under-utilised accommodation to smaller accommodation and would allow many people who have been on the waiting list for council houses for many years to be moved into smaller accommodation. It would create a domino effect across the board.

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I am sure that the Housing Executive will want to consider it and I shall personally bring it to its attention.

There is no doubt about the high quality of housing stock that has been built by the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland and every time I see it I am envious and wish that I had some of it in Wigan. Will the Minister confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, which was that the Housing Executive has lost about £19 million of funding for 1991–92 and that that will have a serious effect on new build? It is alleged that those cuts are occasioned by the additional costs of dealing with terrorism. Will he confirm that the Housing Executive believes that during the period 1992–95 it will lose a further £50 million from its anticipated budget if the cuts are not restored? That would have a disastrous effect on waiting lists in Northern Ireland.

Every year that I have been Minister with responsibility for housing—it is now six years—the Housing Executive has suggested an amount which it hopes that the Government will give it, while knowing perfectly well that it will not get all that it asks for. The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not those proposed by the Government but those which the Housing Executive says that it could spend. The actual reduction is about £7 million. Although I should have preferred there to be no reduction, the fact that the priorities within the Northern Ireland block are law, order and security inevitably means that there are consequences which fall to other matters, and housing is one. The important point is that on which the hon. Gentleman put his finger—the quality of housing in Northern Ireland. As it improves and as housing unfitness is reduced, there is less need to spend so much on it, which allows resources to be spent elsewhere.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the value of inward investment in Northern Ireland since 1979.

Since 1983 selective financial assistance totalling £104 million has been offered to projects with a total forecast investment of nearly £320 million. Comprehensive figures for non-assisted projects and for the years 1979–83 are not available.

It would be idle to speculate on what the figures might have been if it were not for the security situation. Can my hon. Friend say whether the recent bombing campaign has had any impact on prospects for future investment, and whether any new initiatives are under consideration to boost the figures further?

All the statutory agencies in Northern Ireland do whatever they can to boost investment. Clearly, the recent bombing campaign in Northern Ireland does not help our attempts to attract inward investment, but all parties in the House, as part of a Northern Ireland team, work together on ways of trying to get more investment. We have been most successful in the past few years in attracting investment from 18 countries. The IRA campaign leaves an image which is a travesty of the reality of life in Northern Ireland. People who visit always seem astonished by the normalcy of the life of the vast majority of the people most of the time. It would sometimes help if that normalcy were a little better portrayed by the likes of such as the BBC and by those journalists who earn their living by reporting only violence.

Does the Minister agree that the best prospect of reaching and sustaining adequate inward investment will arise only when right hon. and hon. Members representing the people of Northern Ireland put aside their petty differences and continue talks with the Secretary of State to bring the violence in the Province to an end?

Whatever differences may or may not exist, it is erring on the side of arrogance to suggest that they are petty. The differences are deep and go far back into history, but while I have been a Minister dealing with the economy and the environment I have always had the greatest possible collaboration from all the parties in Northern Ireland, which have always worked cheek by jowl with one another and with me for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the politicians of Northern Ireland for doing that.

Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that there is a roadblock on investment in the construction industry because of the problem of landlocking? There is a big case of investment being held up in Ahoghill, and it is also being held up in Carrickfergus, and other places, too. Will the Minister undertake to consider that problem seriously?

Yes, Sir.

I hope that I shall not embarrass the Minister if I commend him again for his imaginative efforts and the time that he has spent abroad trying to develop inward investment. When he considers the figures for the past 10 years, does he have any plans for structural changes involving inward investment teams, especially in the United States? While we await the outcome of the general election, does he have any plans to discuss with the Northern Ireland parties how best we can all further inward investment? Despite what are often called our petty differences, inward investment is something on which we all agree.

I should very much like the opportunity to discuss with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and other colleagues from Northern Ireland, how we can introduce a strategy for promoting inward investment over a longer time scale than that hitherto adopted. If the hon. Gentleman's words were an invitation to me, I shall take up that invitation.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work on the link between Pittsburgh and Newry. That is a good case history, which shows a way forward by building confidence between potential overseas investors and parts of Northern Ireland. I am sure that we can build on that and that it will be ever more successful.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Belfast.

The security situation in Belfast is kept under constant review and the size and disposition of the security force effort there are adjusted as necessary. In recent weeks, a number of additional measures have been introduced and the security forces have had considerable success in disrupting planned terrorist activity.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. May I pass on to him some of the comments made to me by people I know in Belfast? They have welcomed the increased presence of our defence forces in their beleaguered city. May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention a report in the Sunday Express pointing out that paramilitaries convicted of bombing and murder are sheltering in the Republic are drawing more than £2 million per week in dole money and social security, paid for by the British taxpayer, while many would face reconviction if they returned to Ulster? Will my hon. Friend please look into the matter because those people are living off the system that they seek to destroy with their bombs and bullets?

I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in the affairs of the Province and I thank her for it. I am aware of the speculative piece to which she refers. An individual's entitlement to social security benefit, including whether or not he or she receives benefit, is confidential information. I confirm that all claims to benefit are treated strictly in accordance with the law, and benefit would not be paid to any person unless the entitlement was valid.

Will the Minister comment on the proposal to close the strategically placed Royal Ulster Constabulary station at Springfield parade in north-west Belfast?

No, but if the hon. Gentleman has views that he would like to express to me on that closure, I should be delighted to hear from him.

Will the Minister ask the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to get her facts right and stop promoting bias in the House? Will he remind her that 98 per cent. of all people convicted of crimes of violence in Northern Ireland are residents of Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman has made his own effective point in his own effective way. Having read the article, I admit that aspects of it caused my eyebrows to rise.

Can Her Majesty's Ministers use the time before there is any question of political talks resuming to take the initiative in the security situation in Belfast and elsewhere in the Province? For normal political life to be maintained in Northern Ireland, is it not critical to defeat terrorism, and must not that defeat come before political changes or constitutional arrangements?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but he would wish to put it in the context of the fact that security policy works alongside political, economic and social policy. There is no quick fix to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend should be in no doubt, however, that we have that commitment. May I encourage him by telling him that the Chief Constable's view is that four out of every five planned terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland are thwarted before they take place? Last year, we took 400 people to court charged with terrorist-related offences, including 38 for murder. My hon. Friend will have welcomed the substantial arms and explosives finds in Belfast just a few weeks ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in providing Rathlin island with mains electricity.

Preparations to provide mains electricity on Rathlin island are progressing satisfactorily, and supply is expected to be available to consumers in September.

I am pleased at the progress on that issue, but may I ask the Minister now to look urgently at the decision to allow a Scottish ferry company to run the ferry between Rathlin and Ballycastle? Does he realise that the islanders have run the ferry for many years and that until this year they received not a penny of subsidy, unlike the Scottish ferries? Why does he wish to take away the Rathliners' jobs? Will he please look at this urgently and change his decision?

Absolutely no decision of any sort has been made as regards the introduction of Cal-Mac. The hon. Lady knows those ferry owners as well as I do. I have made it perfectly clear to the ferry owners in Rathlin that we shall do nothing without discussing it with them and the islanders' development and community association. Those discussions have been going on with everyone involved. We need to ensure that we get a ferry between Rathlin and Ballycastle which can operatate the whole year round and open the island much more to tourist traffic and economic development. We are having the ferry company over to see how it works, but no decision has been made. We shall look at this very carefully and have discussions with the current owners and with everybody on the island before anything is decided.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be a welcome across the House for his response to the questions? It is important to have both mains electricity and improvements to the harbours at Ballycastle and Church Bay. There will be a great welcome for the fact that there will be discussions with Richard Green and others who have kept Rathlin linked to the main part of Northern Ireland all these years.

I thank my hon. Friend, and give to the House the absolute commitment that nothing will be done on Rathlin island without the fullest possible co-operation with all the islanders and their association. Nothing will be imposed by the Department of the Environment without my having the closest opportunity to discuss all this with the islanders and their representatives myself.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the prospects for an early settlement to the military conflict in Northern Ireland.

The actions of terrorists in Northern Ireland cannot be dignified with the description "military conflict". Peace will come when the terrorists realise, as they must, that they will never be allowed to prevail.

There is widespread admiration for the Secretary of State's persistence in tackling paramilitary terrorism and for his patience over the political talks. May I put to him the comments on BBC television this week of the commanding officer of bloody Sunday, Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, who said that the present Government's policies and those of their predecessors had failed completely? Is there not a case for an entirely new agenda of constitutional talks, involving all elected representatives of both north and south, to agree a solution to this crisis? Otherwise we shall have 23 more years of killing and destruction.

I am conscious how, whenever we come to one of these sad anniversaries in Northern Ireland, those who have participated in Northern Ireland affairs in the past make their contributions to the current debate. As for talks, the party leaders and I issued a statement earlier this week. I think that there is hope and expectation on the part of us all that we shall be able to come back into talks after the general election.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that to deal with military conflicts in the Province British troops must be able to deal with the Irish Republican Army in a professional, military way, without their hands being tied behind their backs for political reasons? Does he further agree that people in the Province deserve equally high standards of security and protection from terrorism as those who live on the mainland?

I have already remarked on the phrase "military conflict". As to my hon. Friend's comment that the security forces should be allowed to operate without constraint from political considerations, I can give a categorical assurance that no such restraint for political reasons will be imposed. The security forces will, however, always operate under the rule of the law.

Does the Secretary of State remember that in Northern Ireland Question Time on 12 December he and I shared a concern about the build-up of munitions and arms as far south as Limerick for trans-shipment to Northern Ireland, as unfortunately happened? Does he feel that he might try to persuade Mr. Collins at their next meeting to devote a little more time to the containment of that particular problem rather than wasting it on demands that a policeman accompany every Army patrol in Northern Ireland, presumably to ensure that the Special Air Services remember to say "please" and "thank you" to any civilian they may encounter?

I had the opportunity to discuss the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised at the conference this week. The Minister of Justice, who of course accompanies the Minister for Foreign Affairs to these conferences, is fully seized—as is the Commissioner of the Garda—of the necessity to identify the whereabouts of the arsenal because of its profound value to the IRA.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the current security situation in Northern Ireland illustrates the irresponsibility of those who oppose the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act?

I have said before from the Dispatch. Box that the attitude of other parties in the House to that Act is a matter for them rather than for me.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that after the election and in the event of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) forming a Government, the right hon. Gentleman will support that Government in seeking to revive the talks on the basis of the three strands that have been the basis of his patient talks over the past two years? At the conclusion of the Nelson case, will the Secretary of State make a statement to the House about the supremacy of the rule of law in Northern Ireland?

I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman's pronunciation, but in my day I fought the constituency of Islwyn which is now represented by the Leader of the Opposition, and I can tell him that it is pronounced "Issloin". In the unlikely event of an alternative Administration being returned to power and seeking to get talks started, on the basis of my experience over the past two years I wish the hon. Gentleman well. In response to the hon. Gentleman's second question, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, made it perfectly clear that we will not make any comment whatever on that case while it is proceeding.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been having important discussions today with President Yeltsin, who is on his first visit abroad as President of an independent Russia. My right hon. Friend will be meeting President Bush this evening after my right hon. Friend's arrival in New York to chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

I am sorry that I so rattled the Prime Minister with my question at the previous Prime Minister's Question Time that he has not come to the House today. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies spring budget report shows that Government borrowing is likely to reach £20 billion next year, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have reneged on their promises to balance the books?

The hon. Gentleman will have to await the Budget statement on matters relating to his question. As is absolutely clear, we have made our spending plans public. They are set out in detail and we have indicated how they are paid for. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear on Tuesday. I note that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers says:

"Labour, if elected, would have little scope for increased spending in the early years unless it were willing to increase taxes by more than it has indicated."

The country now says, "And how!"

Does my right hon. Friend agree that too often we lose sight of the fact that the national health service was born as a result of co-operation between three parties? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the founders of the health service would be horrified at the resistance to the reforms so ably carried out by the Government for the benefit of patients throughout the country?

I entirely agree. It is clear that we have not only substantially increased expenditure on the national health service but that we are the only party proposing credible reforms, the results of which are already showing. I assume that that is why a consultant, who is the nephew of a distinguished former socialist in the House, said yesterday:

"I do not believe the health service would be safe in Labour's hands."

When the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that if the Conservatives were re-elected they would not increase VAT, was he giving the House and the country a categorical assurance?

My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear on Tuesday.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister also made the position categorically clear on 6 April, when he said:

"No honest Government could give a categorical assurance that they would not increase VAT. No Government ever has, and no Government ever will."

Was the Prime Minister telling the truth last Tuesday or last April?

What my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday is:

"There will be no VAT increase …we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]

That is absolutely clear, and it is in clear contrast to the position of the Labour party, which maintains its high spending policies and is all over the place in deciding how to finance them.

It is absolutely clear that the Leader of the House has either no authority or insufficient courage to say whether that promise was categorical or whether it was what the country believes it to have been—evidence of a Prime Minister panicked into making a promise that he has no intention of keeping. Is not the truth about Tory policy on VAT revealed in the party's latest campaign document—that the way to raise taxes is "Wait until they spend the money as that is the right moment to tax them"?

I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear, as we have done on many occasions. It is also clear that in the last two weeks the whole country, as it heard different voices and different noises, has wondered who is speaking for the Labour party. Indeed, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was proposing that Labour's recession package should be introduced after the recession had ended.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that in recent weeks, as the public have been able to assess our present policies and our future policy offerings, there has been a very sharp and noticeable increase in our opinion poll ratings? That is not just a coincidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opinion poll improvement in the past few weeks reflects not only our excellent policy range but the fact that the election is getting closer and the best is yet to come?

I agree that as we unfold our positive policies over the next few weeks, and as the electorate sees more and more of what Labour is offering—or not offering—what my hon. Friend has suggested will come about.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

I have been asked to reply.

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

The Cabinet is split from top to bottom over the Prime Minister's policy of using Common Market grants for tax cuts instead of for the provision of help to deprived areas. Will the Leader of the House confirm the report in yesterday's Financial Times that the rules for allocating this money were changed in 1988 with the approval of the Government, and will he give an immediate assurance that the new rules will be obeyed? Why should Britain's areas of highest unemployment suffer because of Tory party internal divisions?

There are no internal Tory party divisions. The position on the particular issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that for some years now we have pursued the same policy that the money has been, in the formula applied, additional and is reflected in higher public spending plans, and that it is for the Commissioner to honour the pledge that we have had for years past.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the past few days the widespread support for our plans to seek better-quality services from councils? Has he noticed that much advice has been given to us on how that should be done? Some of the advice is bizarre. Will he confirm that he will reject advice to use as a role model councils such as Lambeth, Liverpool, Hackney and Southwark—in other words, councils which have high borrowing, rotten services and high community charges and which have lost control of their housing stock, and all of which are run by the Labour party?

It is clear that nearly all of the 10 worst councils in terms of rent collection and houses left empty are Labour controlled. It is also clear that many of the high-spending authorities are Labour. The country will draw its own conclusion that under a Labour Administration there are great inefficiencies, high spending and high taxation.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and given the obvious confusion among Ministers about the implications of their electoral promises for the future level of value added tax, can the Leader of the House conjure up the actual figure for value added tax when his Government came to office in June 1979, and the level now as they go out of office?

We have, of course, in addition undertaken a considerable change—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I intend to answer. We have undertaken a considerable change from direct to indirect taxes, which is absolutely right because it enables many more people to spend their money as they wish. That is the policy which we have pursued consistently, with the result that direct taxation has come down substantially. However, we did not have the very high rates on many goods such as television sets, which are described as luxury goods but are essentials for many people—rates which we inherited and which I understand that the Labour party would consider again.

To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for the future of the May day bank holiday.

I have been asked to reply.

The Government have no plans to change the present public holiday arrangements, although we shall continue to keep the situation under review.

Why do we not throw off this hangover of socialism and instead celebrate a free enterprise day, a British export day or, better still, a low taxation day? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who think that high taxation is the answer to recession are about to try to convince the electorate that suffocation is a form of first aid?

On the question about May day being a bank holiday, I can give my hon. Friend some comfort. Although I know that my hon. Friend is interested in switching it to the autumn, we have no plans to do that because there are different views about it. I think that he will agree nevertheless that on May day, instead of celebrating socialism, we now celebrate the end of socialism.

Will the Lord President of the Council, as a fellow Scot, tell me whether he has had the opportunity to study in depth the implications of the ICM opinion poll?

Order. Sadly, the question is about May day.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time today to plan a journey from south Norfolk to north-west Norfolk to look at the local health services? He is welcome to bring with him Sir Roy Griffiths. He will see that a number of general practitioner practices have become fundholders, that a local NHS trust has already reduced waiting lists by 1,200 in the last year, and that a district authority is about to merge with a neighbour to give itself more clout. Are not those the results of Tory policies working for the benefit of patients?

My hon. Friend is right. The same is happening in west Norfolk, as well as throughout the country. As a result of the reforms, already in a very short period we see improved services, shortened waiting lists, and so on. Interestingly, we are also seeing increasing support for the reforms from the medical profession itself and increasing take-up of them.

Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the request that he restore to Back Benchers—[Interruption.]

Order. I do not know what the hilarity is about, but please carry on.

—the right to examine Government legislation and that he stop the appalling use of the guillotine which stifles it?

We shall be discussing that matter in a short while. I shall make plain our position on today's business.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is evidence of the growing success of the Government's education reforms that this year 28,800 people have enrolled for teacher training courses—20 per cent. more than last year and the best figure for 15 years? Is that not in stark contrast with the cynical disregard for educational standards shown by those Labour Members who filibustered on the parents charter Bill last night?

Later today we shall be able to debate further the great improvement in standards that we are achieving as a result of our reforms. My hon. Friend draws attention to one of them. I am delighted with the considerable increase in the number coming forward for teacher training. It reflects the fact that we have considerably improved the salary prospects and career prospects of teachers as a result of all the steps that we have taken in recent years.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Will the Leader of the House confirm that although few people in Britain would expect the Prime Minister to match President Yeltsin bottle for bottle, they will find it odd that the Government insist on increasing or doubling Britain's nuclear fire power when both the Russians and the Americans see good reasons for cutting theirs?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I want to make the position clear. We welcome the proposals to reduce the super-power arsenals. They are wonderful news for all of us. We must hope that the current plans are implemented. But let us be perfectly clear about the scale of what is involved. The present arsenal of the former Soviet republics is 27,000 warheads, and it will take them many years to implement the current proposals. Even at the end of that process, they will have thousands of nuclear weapons. Our deterrent involves one boat on patrol at all times with no more than 128 warheads. So the scale is very different. I believe that the whole country thinks that with the uncertainties in the world—in the middle east and elsewhere, as well as in the Soviet Union—and looking ahead to the next 10 years, it is essential that we maintain our minimum credible nuclear deterrent.