What measures she is taking to support enterprise in Northern Ireland. [76679]

Government support for promoting enterprise in Northern Ireland was enhanced by the innovative measures worth £100 million announced in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's initiative of last May. The Budget provided a further boost for enterprise, with a reduction in corporation tax for small businesses, tax credit for research and development, and new corporate venturing measures. All that is good news for Northern Ireland.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunities provided for business in Northern Ireland by the Chancellor's Budget can be built upon so that we build not only peace in Northern Ireland but lasting prosperity for that community, and so that we get the correct frameworks across the community in which everyone can prosper?

I agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. Yesterday, I launched a major economic strategy review document entitled "Strategy 2010", which was part of the Good Friday agreement requirements placed on the Government. It is a comprehensive study on how we can ensure that peace and prosperity can go hand in hand into the new millennium.

Why have no Northern Ireland Ministers or any relevant Treasury Ministers been prepared to see the Petrol Retailers Association to discuss the widely acknowledged fuel smuggling across the border with the Republic?

I cannot answer for Treasury Ministers. I do not know what applications have been made to them. The matter falls within my remit in one sense, but excise duties are a matter for the Treasury, not for the Northern Ireland Office. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met representatives on the issue, and we continue to meet at official level. It is not that we are unconcerned about what has happened, but we want to ensure that any measures that we take to stop the illegal activity have maximum impact. We also want to examine the disparities between the pricing structures north and south of the border.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to promote business and employment opportunities in Northern Ireland? Can he give any figures on the number of young people in Northern Ireland who are taking advantage of Labour's new deal?

That responsibility does not rest directly with me. It rests with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I understand that about 10,000 young people have taken advantage of the new deal initiative. It is an important initiative in Northern Ireland, as it is for the rest of the country. It has given an opportunity to young people, and it has now been extended into other age groups. It ensures that everyone can make a valuable contribution to the economic health and wealth of their community.

The Minister will be aware of the problems facing the road haulage industry in Northern Ireland, and of the importance of that industry to our economy. Is he aware that a number of Northern Ireland road haulage companies have relocated their headquarters in the Republic of Ireland? One company calculates that it could save more than £250,000 a year by doing so. What measures does the Minister intend to take to assist the Northern Ireland road haulage industry which faces very high costs indeed?

I have not received any direct representations on the issue, although I have asked my officials to keep a watching brief over the direct impact in view of recent comments made by road hauliers. I ask the hon. Gentleman to suggest to those with whom he is in contact to write to me. I will pass on their concerns to the Minister responsible, who has already taken initiatives to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised.

When the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland will be established. [76680]

The Northern Ireland Equality Commission will be established as early in April as possible. The posts have been advertised and at present we are considering applications.

My right hon. Friend's answer will be most welcome in Northern Ireland. Will she join me in welcoming the commitment expressed earlier this month by both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to the equality agenda in Northern Ireland, especially in relation to jobs? Does she share my hope that the commission will get off to the best possible start?

I join my hon. Friend in wishing the Equality Commission the best of luck during the process of devolution when that takes place. I am sure that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are as committed as anyone to making it work.

When those in the Northern Ireland community look at the composition and membership of public bodies in Northern Ireland, they find it almost impossible to identify a Unionist, or someone who at least has an acceptable Unionist pedigree. Does the Secretary of State agree that all future appointments to public bodies in Northern Ireland should enjoy the confidence of the whole community? Will she ensure that, when the Equality Commission is established, Unionists will at least have equal preferment on that body, given the perceived evidence in the past of preferential treatment being given to nationalists and to the do-gooder brigade?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in terms of the make-up of bodies such as the commission and others, the Peach criteria for public appointments are applied rigorously by the Government. Such appointments are all advertised in the newspapers, on the internet and in Braille. That was done for the Equality Commission and, where needed, there is an independent element in the interviewing process. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in my view, the representation of communities required by the legislation has taken place.

Will the Equality Commission also deal with such matters as equality before the law? Given the report by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland on harassment of the late Rosemary Nelson by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, can we have confidence in the RUC continuing the investigation into the causes of her death? In the first place, the Metropolitan police had to be brought in, to achieve a degree of impartiality. How can we be certain that that will be the case in the inquiry into her death, when there is only one outside officer and only one with any sort of supervisory duty?

In terms of the role of the Equality Commission, I assure my hon. Friend that there is an equality of opportunity duty, which I hope will be in force as a statutory duty by the summer. That equality of opportunity obligation on the public sector will be an important element in the working of the Equality Commission.

In relation to the sad death of Rosemary Nelson, the ICPC has just received back from the independent Metropolitan police commander, Commander Mulvihill, the accusations raised by Rosemary Nelson that it had passed to him. I understand that those matters will be passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I can assure my hon. Friend that all efforts are being made on that front and when the evidence comes back to me, I shall examine it very carefully and in detail. I assure him of my on-going attention to the outcome of the Mulvihill investigation.

In respect of my hon. Friend's final point about the murder of Rosemary Nelson, the Chief Constable reacted speedily by calling in outside supervision of the investigation, as well as external assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I believe that that will give us a solid investigation, but I shall keep the matter under review.

If each hospital providing accident and emergency services in Northern Ireland will receive accident and emergency targeted funding as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget; and if she will make a statement. [76681]

All accident and emergency departments will be eligible to benefit from the funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Details of how that additional money will be used are still being finalised. I would expect developments to be consistent with the Government's vision for the future development of Northern Ireland's hospital service set out in the document, "Putting it Right", which I published in November last year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but there is fear in Northern Ireland that the benefits of the additional funding will be somewhat selectively applied and that some A and E departments might be closed. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the extra pressures on the ambulance service resulting from the changes will be met by additional resources, so that the new swish A and E departments will be accessible from all parts of the Province?

My hon. Friend can be assured that the £3 million available next year for upgrading A and E departments will be channelled to those who put a good case for upgrading. He makes an important point about the ambulance services; in "Putting it Right", I stated that an extra £15 million would be invested in the ambulance service to ensure that there is coverage throughout Northern Ireland and that people living in rural areas are not disadvantaged. It is important that there is a good ambulance service—one that is ready and fit for the 21st century—and the Government have addressed that in "Putting it Right".

The Minister will agree that there have been some decided improvements in the ambulance service, which we welcome. However, do his plans envisage the retention of the casualty and emergency department at Belfast City hospital, bearing in mind the fact that the golden mile and the student population in the area pose a tremendous challenge these days? Will Shaftesbury Square hospital continue regularly to be retained for weekend use for emergency purposes?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the document I published a month ago, "Fit for the Future", in which I set out the position on acute services provision by hospitals in Belfast, including Belfast City hospital. I recognise the need for good-quality and efficient services in Belfast. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the £4 million I gave for the fractures unit only a few months ago. We recognise the current deficiencies, but, together, we are building a modern accident and emergency service that is fit for the population of Belfast and its environs.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the concern about accident and emergency provision; indeed, there is fear in many of the outlying areas of Northern Ireland—especially in my own constituency about Downe hospital, Downpatrick—as the district hospitals fear a downturn in the emergency services that they can provide. What progress is being made on the implementation of the new accident and emergency regime required by the royal colleges in places such as Downed hospital? The £15 million the Minister mentioned will not be spent until April 2000, so will he tell me what progress has been made in respect of the provision in Down of a new hospital that can offer an appropriate level of services to the entire community of Down and Mourne?

The hon. Gentleman and I have been in regular communication and often hold opposing views, but I acknowledge the fight that he has put up on behalf of his constituency, especially in respect of Downe hospital. He and I are as one on that issue, because we recognise the need to get services provided in the right place, at the right time, by the right person, irrespective of where people live. He knows that a business case for a new hospital in Down is currently being devised; it should arrive on my desk shortly. If the case is soundly made and the proposals have broad community support, I shall be willing to give the plan consideration in the near future.

Regarding accident and emergency services, I pointed out in one of the documents that I published that 75 per cent. of people referred to accident and emergency departments should not be there. That means that three out of four people admitted are blocking the best treatment being given in the quickest possible time to the one in four people who should be there. That needs to change. We need to upgrade accident and emergency units' diagnostic equipment, ensure that they have telemedicine facilities and consider the best way of linking ambulances and A and E units to serve people in rural areas such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

What progress is being made with the Northern Ireland political parties to implement the Good Friday agreement. [76684]

We have come a long way in implementing the Good Friday agreement. We must now move quickly to overcome the remaining difficulties if the transfer of powers is to happen next week. All of us have a collective responsibility to do all that we can to achieve this. Intensive discussions with the political parties have been taking place and will continue. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland is in discussions at this very moment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can she give the House an assurance that this Government will not become like the previous Government, who were transfixed and immobilised, on the question of decommissioning in the peace process? Surely the deaths of Rosemary Nelson and Frank Curry underline the fact that 1,000 silent guns and 1 tonne of Semtex buried and not used are not a problem when there are people who are willing to use one gunshot and 1 lb of explosive, which can derail us unless we face the issue.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, having missed the deadline of 10 March, she will call a meeting of the Assembly on 29 March and will set up the Executive in Northern Ireland?

The deaths of Rosemary Nelson and Mr. Curry are sad and difficult occasions for their families but a stark reminder to everybody else involved in this process of what can happen if we do not make progress and instead go back down the road to the violence of the past.

On decommissioning and the formation of the Executive, I have made it clear on many occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that we expect both things to happen. Both are crucial for the Good Friday agreement to work.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the deadline of 29 March. I have said on numerous occasions that we missed the target of 10 March. We set that as a goal because that is when we would have got all the necessary legislation through the House to make it possible for the transfer or devolution of powers to take place. I think that we are now looking at next week for the simple reason that it is a natural target a year after the agreement. I have said that I will call a meeting of the Assembly, which will automatically trigger the d'Hondt process. It is essential that that happens if progress is to be made.

I have made it clear that I will do that. Therefore, it is up to all the parties collectively, including us and the Irish Government, to do everything that we can to ensure that differences are resolved in the next week.

As the Secretary of State knows, we have now done all that we can in terms of the implementation of the agreement and that the obstacle to further progress now remains the sort of intransigence that I encountered yesterday afternoon when I met the gentlemen who should be serving as Members for Belfast, West and Mid-Ulster but refuse to do so.

Does the Secretary of State agree, dealing with the decommissioning issue, that the loyalist who planted the hand grenade in Castlewellan that went off yesterday, the loyalist responsible for the death of Rosemary Nelson and the loyalist who earlier this week declared that he would never decommission are all, objectively speaking, supporting the IRA in its refusal to decommission, and that the best thing that all three of those gentlemen could do to ensure that we have progress and achieve the success of peace would be to follow the example given by the leadership of the Loyalist Volunteer Force when it began the process of decommissioning?

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that decommissioning—[Interruption.] I have to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that decommissioning is a crucial part of the agreement. Like me, he would like to see the weapons discovered, taken care of and out of politics. We agree with that and the position that he has just set out.

As everybody knows, however, all parts of the agreement have to be implemented. We must find a way of getting the Executive in place so that other parts of the agreement can be implemented in full. We have both those things to focus on in the next week. The important aspect of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that which everybody in the process needs to do, which is to focus on the big picture and make sure that progress is made.

My right hon. Friend says that decommissioning is a crucial part of the agreement. If that is so, why cannot the Government purchase arms held by the paramilitary groups as part of an attempt to oil the wheels of the decommissioning process? I remind her that I have asked that question before, and I did not get a knock back, so I understand that the option remains open.

Every option is open to make progress and every one will be considered. To reassure my hon. Friend that his point has been heard, I can tell him that the decommissioning body, under General de Chastelain, will be well aware of my hon. Friend's suggestion by teatime today, and I am sure that the General, whose duty it is to consider decommissioning schemes, will take it into account.

If progress is not made on setting up the Executive by Good Friday, what will happen next?

As I said in answer to an earlier question, the position is that some time during the week beginning 29 March—the earlier, the better—I shall ensure that I call a meeting of the Assembly so that the d'Hondt process will operate. Everybody knows that an inexorable course will then be followed. I want to ensure that the parties understand that if d'Hondt operates and an Executive of only one party is formed, rather than a cross-community Executive, powers cannot be devolved or transferred. Without those communities being included, the Executive would be dysfunctional and could not make decisions.

I make it clear, as I have done on other occasions, that we are meeting the Irish, the parties are talking and everybody is doing their best to make progress in a difficult, serious situation.

May I take the Secretary of State back to last Friday and the disgraceful scenes in a Belfast courtroom when Bernard Maginn, the evil IRA murderer of Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick, who was sentenced to more than 400 years in prison for his evil murders, laughed at the judge and said, "I'll be out in 16 months." Will the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to state clearly to the House that, if the IRA has not completed all its decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by next July, that evil man and his colleagues will not be released back on to the streets?

I have communicated with Mrs. Restorick on numerous occasions, and I want to put on record yet again my sympathy and understanding for the pain that she and many others have gone through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer the question, but I have the right to put on record my concern, which I am sure is shared by the Conservative Members who are shouting at me.

I say to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that all parts of the Good Friday agreement have to operate if it is to succeed. One cannot cherry-pick or start rewriting part of the agreement because it suits at a particular time. We shall implement the agreement along with the parties as far as that is possible. It is up to us, as a Government, to implement the agreement that the parties and the people voted on.

That is what we are doing and that is what 29 March is about. If anything needs to be changed after that, it will be done in consultation with the parties.

I do not wish the Secretary of State to cherry-pick parts of the Belfast agreement. She will be aware, as the House is aware, that, under the agreement, decommissioning must be completed by next May and she must release all terrorist prisoners by next July. At that time, three months will have passed since the date when all decommissioning should have taken place. I am asking the right hon. Lady a simple, straightforward question, to which Mrs. Restorick and everybody else would like an answer: will she promise me and the House that if there is not complete decommissioning by the IRA of illegally held arms and explosives by the due date in May, those evil murderers will not be released back on to the streets in July?

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I have the power to vary that end date. However, I have made it clear to him on many occasions that speaking as he does and answering such questions now, when we are desperately trying to make progress in the last week that we have, does not help anybody. We have made it clear that decommissioning must happen. That is a crucial part of the agreement. To use the language of defeat and to ask for statements now about events a year down the road is not helpful. Of course those questions must be answered in the future, but, for goodness' sake, in a week such as this, when we are building up to 29 March, cannot the Opposition try to look on the positive side, rather than create problems?

What measures she is taking to tackle crime in Northern Ireland. [76685]

Apart from doing everything possible to tackle and deter terrorist and paramilitary-related criminal acts, the Government are promoting a range of crime prevention measures in conjunction with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other statutory and voluntary agencies. Those measures include funding for the community safety centre, promoting public awareness campaigns and supporting projects to help reduce the incidence and fear of crime. A contribution from the modernisation fund will be used to boost crime prevention initiatives in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today laid in Parliament the policing objectives for the RUC in Northern Ireland for the year ahead.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We are all aware that the police in Northern Ireland have been in the front line in dealing with terrorism and the appalling atrocities that have occurred. What steps are being taken to ensure that the RUC is prepared and able to cope effectively with the rest of its policing role and activities—what we might call a more usual policing role, serving the community in Northern Ireland?

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the role performed by the RUC on behalf of everyone in defending our freedoms in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. On the RUC's role in relation to other types of criminal activity, I pointed out in my earlier response some of the initiatives that have been taken. The allocation from the modernisation fund will be used for the introduction of closed circuit television schemes throughout Northern Ireland. I announced an early CCTV initiative for Portadown. It is hoped that that will assist the RUC to tackle the difficult problems that it faces in Portadown and elsewhere.

Does the Minister recognise that, although we welcome the measures that have been taken to combat ordinary crime in Northern Ireland, the main concern of the people of Northern Ireland is still the large hoard of illegal weapons held by terrorist organisations? Does the Minister therefore recall that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has consistently said that terrorist hoards of weapons should be given up? Does he welcome the statement that the hon. Gentleman made yesterday, to the effect that semtex should be dumped for General de Chastelain to pick up?

Does the Minister accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has made endless concessions in an effort to get the IRA to live up to the obligations that it took upon itself last year, and that the Unionist people have nothing left to give? Does he agree that it is long past time for the IRA to live up to its obligations to surrender the weapons? When the Government consider the matter of crime, will they ensure that the punishment fits the crime?

Of course I recognise the contribution made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). He has made a significant contribution to efforts to move the process forward, as indeed has the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). That is why they were recognised internationally and awarded the Nobel peace prize for their efforts. In her earlier comments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question about the need for decommissioning. All our attention is on that and on ensuring that all parts of the Good Friday agreement are implemented in full. That is the only way in which we can achieve genuine peace in Northern Ireland.

After the Home Secretary's embarrassing, incompetent and bungled intervention earlier this week over the release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, will the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State knew about that intervention beforehand? If she did, was she in full agreement?

It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to accuse the Government of bungling. I remind the House that he was a Northern Ireland Minister before the election and we inherited a blank sheet in whole range of areas over which he had responsibility, such as victims and economic development.

Of course there were discussions on that particular issue within the Government, and a detailed answer has been given in relation to the way in which it has been handled by the Home Office and the way in which the Northern Ireland Office deals with matters of law relating to the release of prisoners.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 March.

I have been asked to reply. As the House knows, the Prime Minister is in Berlin today, attending the special European Council. I have spoken to him this morning about the situation in Kosovo. We agreed that we should take this military action with total resolve. This is a difficult decision and we have to see it through all the way.

Constituents are anxious that the Prime Minister should be successful in securing objective 1 status for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in Berlin this week. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if the Prime Minister returns victorious, that will also be a personal triumph for Cornwall's MEP, Robin Teverson, who has fought so long and hard for such an outcome? Does he also accept that local partners in Cornwall should be given every encouragement to get on with the important tasks in hand, without unnecessary European or United Kingdom Government interference?

The actions of everyone involved will bring about the achievement of objective 1 status and recognition of the special problems of Cornwall, and my right hon. Friend is dealing with those matters in Berlin. The establishment of development agencies, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), has also played an important part. We all look forward to developments in Cornwall and to the improvement of prosperity there, brought about by a Labour Government.

As you know, Madam Speaker, many hon. Members, not least those from the north-east of England, give a high priority to regional issues, but this morning our Prime Minister asked the British people to be ready to make sacrifices so that the Albanian Muslims of Kosovo can take their proper and rightful place in our common European home. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, at the first indication that the Government of the Yugoslav Federation are willing to accept the deal accepted by the representatives of the Albanian Muslim majority in Kosovo, the hostilities that are about to commence will be instantly terminated?

My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear yesterday that NATO is united and stands ready to take military action if Milosevic does not change his position and the repression continues. If, in those circumstances, he does not stop creating terror among the people in Kosovo—whole villages continue to be burnt no fewer than 25,000 people have been displaced in the four days since the peace talks broke down—President Milosevic should be in no doubt that we will take whatever action is necessary to avert a humanitarian tragedy. He has his part to play.

The Deputy Prime Minister will know from our joint visit to Omagh after the tragic bombing there that I recognise his abhorrence of terrorism and share his determination to make the Good Friday agreement work. I know that he will share my disgust at the sight of the murderer of Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick laughing in court after he received three life sentences and boasting to his friends that he would be out in 16 months. Will the Deputy Prime Minister convey to the Prime Minister the strong feeling registered earlier in this House that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should give an assurance that that evil man will not be released until Sinn Fein/IRA have given in their arsenal of weapons?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear a few moments ago, we will observe the Good Friday agreement. The exchange of prisoners, and the freeing of prisoners, is in line—[HON. MEMBERS: "Exchange?"] I withdraw the word "exchange". I apologise; I made a slip.

The freeing of prisoners is part of the Good Friday agreement, and we will observe it. Notwithstanding all the difficulties, and all the disgust that may be felt at the time, that is what we agreed to and what we intend to implement.

I had hoped that the Government would be clearer than they have been about the obligation of Sinn Fein/IRA to hand in weapons. This week, the Home Secretary has sent unclear and confused signals about the Government's willingness to delay the release of prisoners. Is it not time that the Government sent the clear signal that the Good Friday agreement must be implemented in full? That means not releasing any more murderers while the terrorists on both sides refuse to give up their guns and bombs. Why do the terrorists want to keep their weapons, other than to use them or threaten to use them?

I find it difficult to accept that the right hon. Gentleman's aim is to secure agreement in Northern Ireland, given the language that he uses. We all know that the next few days will be critical to establishing a settlement on the Good Friday agreement. Assent to certain actions will have to be secured, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are very much involved in that.

The whole House has made it clear that we want agreement in Northern Ireland, and we are nearer to achieving that agreement than we have ever been. There are fewer murders, and there is more eagerness to secure agreement. We should place more emphasis on the words that encourage people to come together in agreement and dialogue, rather than using the language used by the right hon. Gentleman.

I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend has said, but may I change the subject? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of a national minimum wage next week will be supported around kitchen tables throughout the United Kingdom—not least in the magnificent and historic city of Kingston upon Hull?

As a former commis chef who once spent most of his time around a kitchen table, let me say that I was protected by the wages councils that the previous Administration abolished, driving millions into poverty pay. I am particularly proud to be a member of a Labour Government who are introducing a statutory minimum wage from which millions will benefit from next week.

Let me be helpful to the Opposition. We intend to advertise to the people of this country, informing them of their rights in relation to the statutory minimum wage. In the interests of impartial advertising, I invite Opposition Members to suggest a form of words making it clear that the Tories fought the minimum wage tooth and nail, and would still abolish it if they ever got the chance to do so.

As the Deputy Prime Minister well knows, there is widespread support on all sides for the action that, regrettably, now appears to be imminent in Kosovo. Does he agree that, precisely because British troops are going to be committed, it is necessary to have a clear, definable, achievable political end that will show what we are trying to secure, and will tell us when we should stop? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to define explicitly the aims that we seek to achieve through the actions that we shall take in Kosovo during the next hours and days?

The Prime Minister told the House yesterday that the minimum objective of NATO action would be to curb continued Serbian repression in Kosovo, in order to avert a continuation of the humanitarian disaster that we all agree is taking place. NATO action would therefore target the military capability of the Serb dictatorship.

With great respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, what he has told us is the legal justification, not the political aim. A political aim gives an outcome which is stable and durable. While it might be desirable that we reduce President Milosevic's capacity to kill Albanians, that will not produce a stable Kosovo. May I suggest that the aims of the action should be these: in the first instance, to persuade President Milosevic to sign up to the Rambouillet agreement; and if, as I anticipate, that fails, to ensure that this is seen as the first step in the establishment of an international protectorate in Kosovo?

With the greatest respect, if the right hon. Gentleman had been here yesterday, he would have heard the Prime Minister address himself to that matter. As he made clear yesterday, Milosevic must do what he promised to do last October, and these are the objectives of the action: end the repression, as the House has been calling for; withdraw his troops to barracks; get them down to the levels that he agreed in that agreement; and withdraw from Kosovo the tanks, the heavy artillery and other weapons that he brought to Kosovo last January. That is the minimum condition to end the repression in Kosovo.

Will my right hon. Friend please urgently inquire into the disastrous developments in Vaux Breweries, which has its headquarters in Sunderland, my home town? Is he aware that some of the shareholders have pulled the plug on a management buy-out, against the wishes of the chairman, Sir Paul Nicholson? Is he aware that those shareholders are Mercury Asset Management Ltd., led by Carol Galley, who was born in Newcastle upon Tyne, the Bankers Trust and Hermes Pensions Management Ltd., which was the former Post Office pension fund and is led by Alastair Ross Goobey? Will he call those shareholders in to explain why they are prepared to sacrifice 700 jobs in Sunderland and Sheffield for the sake of only £2.5 million of extra shareholder value?

I am aware of that concern. It has also been expressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). I believe that Members have made it clear to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We are concerned about the matter. The Secretary of State and his Ministers are prepared to discuss the issue and will make the necessary arrangements.

If NATO air strikes indirectly cause the situation of innocent people in Kosovo to get worse, rather than better, what then?

We are confident, of course, that the strategy that we are embarked on now will have the effect of reducing the Serbians' capability of continuing to repress the people in Kosovo. I believe that that will happen and that the strategy will achieve the ends that we have set out.

Many of us find it very difficult to understand the mentality of those who abuse and inflict cruelty on children. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has estimated that one child a week dies from cruelty. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give his support, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House already have, to the NSPCC's full stop campaign to end cruelty to children within a generation? Will he give his personal support to the pledge, sign it and do what he can to stop such cruelty?

The Government welcome the NSPCC's initiative of this week. Indeed, many of the plans that the NSPCC is proposing are in line with the Government's strategy to help more children to be protected from harm and to be given the best possible start in life. I am sure that every hon. Member feels exactly the same about that and that there is common agreement between us.

As for my personal support, I am pleased to say that, at the end of January, I helped to launch the NSPCC's vision for children campaign and signed the petition that my hon. Friend talked of. I did it with the director of the society. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to express full support for all the society does.

This week saw a mass demonstration by lorry drivers who face ruin after the Budget. The Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce and road transport unions all say that 50,000 jobs will go. Was the Deputy Prime Minister consulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the job-destroying fuel tax increases; if so, did he argue against them?

Yes, I did hold discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We are agreed that we desire to achieve a better environment in the United Kingdom, with increasing economic prosperity. In our debates on the lorry industry, it has become clear that—although there is much talk of travelling and transferring abroad—operating costs for the United Kingdom industry are about £600,000 less than in places such as France, Germany or Belgium. Costs for UK operators are therefore considerably different from those of their competitors abroad. That has been confirmed by an international consultant's report stating that costs for UK operators are two thirds those of some of their major competitors.

If there is concern about jobs, I should say that the boom-and-bust cycle under the previous Administration—of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, helping to develop the Treasury's boom-and-bust policy—directly caused hundreds of thousands of hauliers to go to the wall. So we have no reason whatsoever to be apologetic for ensuring that the road industry has a proper part to play—and that the haulage industry has an essential part to play—in an integrated transport policy, which we are now developing.

So the right hon. Gentleman was consulted, he did agree—and he apparently believes that all those truckers came to London to thank him for the benign regime that he has put in place for them! Is he aware of the case of Shaun Neal, of Harwich, who says in today's newspapers:

"We were struggling before the Budget … Now we haven't got a chance. … Every corner we turn we have been hit by another"—

Government—"tax"?

The bogus figures that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned will not convince Shaun Neal or hauliers in Labour Members' constituencies. Since the Government have now been forced into crisis talks with the road haulage industry, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to discuss withdrawing the Budget fuel tax rise?

I think it is a bit much when someone from the previous Administration, who introduced the fuel tax escalator—which has created much of the cost that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about—asks us to remove it. We will not. The Budget is set. We believe that it is a fair Budget, and that it deals with the type of economic problems that we inherited from the previous Administration. All the signs show that it is successful: lower interest rates, increasing growth—those facts show a successful economy.

Perhaps I should give the right hon. Gentleman a quote from the previous Chancellor, who—when talking of those who are critical of the fuel escalator—said:

"Any critic of the Government's"—

the previous Government's—

"tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy".—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]

That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his refusal to give a clear promise to discuss the withdrawal or reduction of those tax rises will come as a bitter blow to the Road Haulage Association—which has said that without those issues on the table, the talks are worthless? Is it not typical of the Government that they offer no real help? Is it not shameful that he, as Secretary of State for Transport, was off playing Jacques Cousteau when the Government decided to introduce the measures? Is not his refusal today the final proof that they are a tax-raising Government who do not care about British truckers, British business and British jobs?

It is quite clear from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not concern himself with the British environment. Ours is a balanced judgment between economic prosperity and the best environmental solution. We think that we have achieved that balance in the Budget. I tell him that, yes, we are holding discussions with the industry—more than were held by the previous Administration—in a forum that my right hon. Friend has convened. Of course we shall discuss in that forum the concerns of the road haulage industry.

As for the cheap jibe on diving, the people of the United Kingdom can make a judgment on whether—[Interruption.] They can. Whether it is on saving the tiger or on diving among the reefs, we have to make a judgment. I shall, as Secretary of State for the Environment, try to do that. I can however tell the right hon. Gentleman that although I dived to 80 ft, I did not dive deep enough to reach the low Tory poll rating.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating most warmly those Brits who received magnificent awards at the Oscars this year? Does he accept that, from day one, the Government were determined to build the foundations for even greater success in future? When the film action report is published next month, will it ensure that at least 20 per cent. of the films projected in British cinemas will be British, thereby illuminating the British genius to which Richard Attenborough frequently refers?

The whole House would want to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the British film industry on its tremendous achievements. However, it was sad that some of them were based on American rather than British money. We feel that that could be improved and the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget are a step towards making it a totally British operation.

On the subject of stealth taxes, who does the Deputy Prime Minister think is to blame for the fact that the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors who run Worcestershire county council have raised the council tax by more than four times the rate of inflation? Is it them, is it him or is it all of them?

It has become clear since various authorities have announced their proposed council taxes that the average council tax increase under Tory councils is something like 9.8 per cent. whereas under Labour councils it is something like 6.7 per cent. So we are witnessing better value under Labour councils than under Tory councils.

May I tell the Deputy Prime Minister of the concern of a large number of car component manufacturers in my constituency and in the rest of Birmingham and the west midlands about the time that the Government are taking to decide how much investment they want to make in the future success of Rover? Will he contact his ministerial colleagues today and ask them to reach a quick decision, to allow Rover to build on the success that its management and work force have achieved over the past few years?

The House will understand the concerns that have just been expressed. Indeed, the Government are actively involved in the matter. I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's views to my ministerial colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Is the House Library's arithmetic accurate when it reveals that next year taxation will rise by £7.1 billion as a result of the Chancellor's three Budgets? How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the contrast between those figures and the spin that the Chancellor placed on the Budget?

The hon. Gentleman can refer to page 14 of the Red Book. I am not aware that the actual figures are disputed. The total amounts are disputed and how they are allocated has been a matter of argument, but there is no doubt about the overall tax benefits to many thousands of people. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about tax, is he not also concerned about Hampshire county council, which has increased council tax by 9.4 per cent. despite receiving one of the highest settlements?

One of the main reasons for long-term unemployment in my constituency is the previous Government's lack of interest in the British shipping industry. At one time there were 1,800 shipworkers in my constituency; now there are 58. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will take measures to halt any further decline in the industry?

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend says. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he is concerned about the decline of the shipping industry. He has appointed Lord Alexander to look into financial policies that could reverse that decline. We have heard a lot from the Conservatives about lorry companies flagging out abroad to a flag of convenience. They presided over a fall in the British merchant fleet from 1,400 ships to fewer than 200 under flags of convenience. Whenever I protested, I was told that it was all about competition. What a different attitude they have to the lorry hauliers' flag of convenience argument.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister in favour of parental choice and selection in education? [Interruption.]

I am sorry, I did not hear that.

If hon. Members were less noisy, we would hear the questions.

I am prepared to give the Deputy Prime Minister enough time to try to answer the question. Is he in favour of parental choice and selection in education?

I am sorry that I did not hear the question. The selection system, and the 11-plus particularly, worked against me. I believe in a comprehensive education system. We should be able to meet the demands of all children, however gifted, in a comprehensive system. That is what we are trying to do with our "education, education, education" policies.

Did my right hon. Friend share my satisfaction when he read page 16 of our White Paper setting out our proposals for freedom of information legislation, which makes it clear that we intend to set a test for those who wish to stop disclosure of information? They will have to demonstrate that substantial harm would ensue. Has my right hon. Friend also noted that recommendation 9 of Sir William Macpherson's report says that the police should be brought under freedom of information legislation and that the substantial harm test should apply? Will he tell the House that we stand by our commitment set out in our White Paper and that we accept the unambiguous recommendation of Sir William Macpherson?

rose—

And if not, why not?

I am pleased to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Sketch Writer, East. We have made clear the important principle in the White Paper. We hope that the Bill will be published in early May and it will address that point.

In view of the ruling of the Law Lords a short time ago and their comments on the substantial reduction in the number of extraditable charges, when will we get a decision from the Home Secretary on the Pinochet case?

The legal arguments on the state of immunity have been given the most careful and thorough consideration. Our highest court, sitting with seven Law Lords, has today given its judgment. The case remains sub judice and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider the judgment.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of transport infrastructure to the regeneration of east London. His commitment to the channel tunnel rail link and its benefits not only to east London but to the whole country are well documented. Will he advise us of the progress that is being made on the Jubilee line extension, which, with the docklands light railway, is a key element to drive forward the regeneration of east London? What success is he achieving in rescuing the scheme from the chaos left by the Conservatives?

We are confident that London Transport will open the Jubilee line extension in time for the millennium. We are in regular contact with London Transport and we are monitoring the situation closely. The House will be aware that I had to renegotiate the channel tunnel rail link agreement. The original agreement was disastrous for the taxpayer. The project was bankrupt, and we had to regenerate it. By a new form of financing, we were able to rebuild the channel tunnel rail link, which has now been started. The investment of more than £5 billion has been very important in the rebuilding of the Thames gateway area.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confine his remarks to the Ribble valley? The council tax in the Ribble valley is rising by 7.5 per cent.—more than three times the rate of inflation. We have a Liberal Democrat borough council and a Labour-run county council. Many of my constituents have had wage increases at the rate of inflation, and many are farmers whose wages have actually decreased. What does the right hon. Gentleman consider an excessive rise in the council tax? What protection can he give to the people of the Ribble valley from being clobbered by an increase of three times the rate of inflation?

The House will expect me to give my considered judgment on the council tax increases in all local authorities shortly. I have to report my judgment to the House. That is the normal practice, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will await that statement.

As for the hon. Gentleman's constituents being clobbered by the Budget, let me tell him that 11,400 families, 17,000 pensioners and 1,700 small and large businesses in Ribble Valley benefited from the Budget. More than £25 million extra was provided for education in his constituency, and £222 million for health. How can he talk about his constituents being clobbered? It is about time he talked to them about a successful Labour Government beginning to repair the damage done by the previous Administration.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 2 o'clock this afternoon, the House of Lords announced its decision in the case of Senator Pinochet. According to Lord Browne-Wilkinson:

"The result of this decision is to eliminate the majority of the charges levelled against Senator Pinochet by the Government of Spain and relied upon as the basis for extraditing him."

The charges have been drastically reduced, and only very limited charges remain. In giving judgment, their lordships said that the whole matter should be reconsidered by the Home Secretary.

As you know, Madam Speaker, it has been the consistent view of the Opposition that this matter should be settled in Chile, and not here. What I would like to ask for goes further than what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said. I would like to ask the Home Secretary to review the case with the utmost urgency, and to make a statement to the House as soon as possible—preferably in the next few days.

The right hon. Gentleman and the House will have heard what the Deputy Prime Minister has had to say. I am sure that most Members will know that the House of Lords has decided that Senator Pinochet does not have immunity from prosecution in respect of some charges in the warrants against him. Extradition proceedings against the senator are still pending. The courts will have to decide whether the evidence against the senator is sufficient to warrant his trial in Spain.

The remaining charges relate to events that have occurred since 1988 and I cannot, under our sub judice rule, allow a reference to them. Following what I have said, it will be obvious to hon. Members that I have not had an application from the Home Secretary to make a statement on those matters. The Home Secretary is on the Front Bench and will have heard the exchanges.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the beginning of this month, I asked you what a Government Minister should do with a leaked document. Subsequently, you kindly wrote to me to explain that you were referring the matter to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Are you now in a position to report any progress?

Yes, I am. When the hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me—quite rightly—I undertook to look into it and to reflect on it. I am sorry that he has not been able to follow what has happened since then. Subsequently, I asked the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to take the issue under consideration. Its views were communicated to me in a letter, which was placed in the Library.

In essence, the Committee's view is that the fundamental responsibility of Members who receive leaked copies of Select Committee reports before publication must be to act in a way that does not impede the Select Committee in the discharge of its responsibilities to the House. In the judgment of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Member should not make use of leaked Select Committee papers and should return them without delay to the Clerk of the Select Committee.

The Standards and Privileges Committee may have more to say on the subject once it has completed its inquiry into the leak from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Leader of the House made it plain that it would be possible for tomorrow's debate to relate to the situation in Kosovo, which the House would otherwise have no opportunity to discuss. On an Adjournment debate, there is not normally a vote, although it is possible to register an opinion on the Adjournment. That has been done; I have done it myself. Ought not the Government, in view of the, gravity of the decision announced yesterday, to replace the Adjournment debate with a debate inviting the House to endorse a motion, so that those who agree with it can support it and those with a contrary view can register that view in the Lobby?

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be of assistance to the House if I make two brief observations. First, the Government are conscious of the fact that the debate announced for tomorrow is likely to be dominated by Kosovo and recognise that the House will not want to lose the time for a general debate on defence. Secondly, there are hardly any precedents for a debate on such a matter, at a time of conflict, other than on the Adjournment. That was true throughout the Falklands war and almost throughout the Gulf war.

rose—

Order. I cannot allow a debate on a point of order. I think that the Leader of the House has made the Government's position absolutely clear. I understand the wide range of views on the issue, and I shall certainly see that there is an opportunity for that wide rainbow spectrum of views to be heard in tomorrow's debate.

Further to that point of order. I am not debating your ruling, Madam Speaker, merely clarifying the point that, in view of what the Leader of the House has just said, there is a precedent, when no motion is tabled, for the House to register its opinion on a vote on the Adjournment, and I want to be sure that my recollection of that is correct.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Item 4 of our business today, "Reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds", was referred to in Prime Minister's questions by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), who drew our attention to his wish for Cornwall to have objective 1 status. The matter was discussed at length yesterday in European Standing Committee C. May I seek your assurance that the Hansard report of those proceedings will properly reflect the fact that no Liberal Democrat Member attended that Committee to raise the matter?

That is a good try, but not a matter for me, I fear.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman for all the hon. Members chatting around him. He is so popular that I can hardly see him.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually on service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions.

The Bill would require the Government to present an annual report to Parliament on the value of service pensions, war pensions and war widows pensions, and related issues. It would also require the disclosure of details on the number of pensioners and the degree of sufficiency afforded by the various benefits, allowances and pensions, as well as details of the Government's plans to improve such benefits and pensions. The Secretary of State would be obliged to consider representations from both individuals and organisations involved with ex-service people and to consult them before presenting such a report to Parliament.

Such legislation is timely, because there is a growing body of opinion among all our constituents that the voice of those who made considerable sacrifices on behalf of the United Kingdom in the armed forces is not sufficiently reflected in our deliberations. I remind the House that the last time that we had a debate on veterans' issues was on 1 July 1996, when I won the ballot for a Friday morning debate—an opportunity now denied to Back Benchers. It is many years since a Prime Minister met in summit with the representatives of ex-service organisations. In other countries, such a situation would not endure. In the United States of America, all ex-service organisation have regular access to the highest levels of the Administration and to the President himself.

We need to create a culture whereby Government is much more sensitive to the needs of ex-service people. An identical Bill to my measure passed through all its stages after it was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Morris of Manchester. If this Bill had been on the statute book and placed its duties on Government, the interests of those suffering from what we know as Gulf war syndrome, and related illnesses, might be substantially more advanced than they are. The indefensible anomaly whereby war widows pensions and war disablement pensions have different values in different local authority areas, would probably also have been resolved.

There is also the scandal of the "pensions trough". Often, the recommendations of the armed forces pay review body are implemented in stages and that disadvantages those retiring at certain times of the year, compared to their colleagues with identical service who retire at a different stage of the calendar year. If the Government were forced to make an annual report to the House, followed by a debate, on the state of war pensions, it would force us to address that issue.

I also wish to flag up the continuing disagreement between the ex-service organisations and the Government on the issue of noise-induced hearing loss. I believe that it is proven that many ex-service men and, I suppose, some women have suffered a loss of hearing because of their war service. However, that is not sufficiently recognised by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security.

Before 1973, war widows campaigned for an improvement in their pensions. They achieved something for their successors in that the spouses of ex-service men and women retiring after 1973 were entitled to receive half the "spouses" pension on being widowed. Those who were widowed before 1973 still receive only one third of their spouses' retirement pension. I remind the House that that group includes the second world war generation and we are the beneficiaries of their sacrifice. Their number is diminishing and they are growing more frail. We have a duty and obligation to discriminate in their favour.

The Royal British Legion, the Officers Pension Society—which, despite its name, represents the interests of all ranks—and all the other ex-service organisations feel strongly that the Bill should be placed on the statute book as a discipline on Governments, of whatever political complexion, so that those issues are automatically addressed every year by the House of Commons. Another illustration of my case is the position of the spouses of ex-service men—and some women—who married their spouses after they had retired from the armed forces. There is appalling discrimination against them. Those who fall into that category, after 1978, may receive a war widows pension, but those who were in that category before 1978 do not. That discriminates badly against the older generation.

I do not want to detain the House, which has much to address itself to this afternoon. However, I did not realise a couple of weeks ago, when I decided to introduce the Bill, that I would do so on such a poignant day. In a few hours, the men and women of our armed forces may be required by Her Majesty's Government to put themselves in peril. Whenever forces are deployed, particularly in a war, accidents happen and there are injuries under enemy fire.

We hope and pray that casualties will be kept to a minimum if engagement in Kosovo proves inevitable. Throughout history, the House of Commons has rather glibly expected the men and women of our armed forces to put themselves in danger. We owe them a great debt, and I do not think that we repay it sufficiently. I hope that the men and women who will be deployed today and the men and women who have given service in the past will find favour with the Bill. I ask the House to endorse it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Syd Rapson, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Dr. David Clark, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Bob Russell and Mr. David Crausby.