To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many small businesses were set up in Northern Ireland in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

That information is not yet available for 1989. The Government continue to assist the development of small businesses through the Local Enterprise Development Unit and have increased its funding by £4·7 million, or 17 per cent., to more than £33 million for 1991.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Local Enterprise Development Unit, unique to Northern Ireland, is doing a most satisfactory job in promoting small businesses and employment in the Province? How many small businesses have been assisted by LEDU and how many jobs have been created since LEDU was founded in 1971?

Many thousands of small companies have been assisted and 43,000 jobs have been promoted by LEDU since 1971. Last year 5,004 jobs were promoted at a cost of £4,400 per job. LEDU is upping its target for new jobs to 10,000 per year in 1994. As my hon. Friend said, there is no doubt that the creation of small businesses and the work created is crucial to the economic success of Northern Ireland.

What advice would the Minister give to small businesses that feel that they are being forced to use LEDU-nominated professional advisers when preparing business plans for grant applications? Will he take steps to reduce the time taken to process such applications?

I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's last point first. It is crucial that we get as much of the work through as fast as we can. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking on that. It is up to the company concerned to determine which professional adviser it uses. Clearly, there will be those who have greater expertise on this subject, and LEDU's advice should be listened to carefully. In the final instance, it must be up to the companies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Government funding to hospices in Northern Ireland.

A total of £530,000, a 100 per cent. increase in the present level of funding, will be made available in 1990–91 to provide, for the first time, a firm public sector financial base for the support of hospices in Northern Ireland.

I thank my hon. Friend for that wonderful reply. Hospices have been funded through charitable donations in the United Kingdom—in my constituency, in Weymouth, people have been excellent in putting money into that sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that such community involvement is similar to the Government's opting-out proposals? Does he think that that will happen even more in the Province of Northern Ireland? Where will the additional funding be spent in the Province?

There is, of course, a need for a partnership with those involved with the terminally ill. There is a wonderful record of voluntary service and help to the terminally ill in Northern Ireland. The Government feel that they must do whatever they can to help and are increasing their spending this year by £530,000—£530,000 more than last year—and in 1991–92 they plan to spend a further £200,000. The objective is to obtain a 50:50 partnership with the voluntary organisations. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial to keep the partnership going and to attract as many private donations and as much support as we can, particularly from the business side. I think that he will agree that the Budget measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will help in that.

As the Minister will be aware from correspondence from me, a vast amount of voluntary effort in the Derry area has gone into setting up the Foyle hospice, demonstrating the need for that service there. Is he now telling us that at last the Government will fund that hospice?

The hon. Gentleman knows that hospices in Northern Ireland are a regional service, but the Foyle hospice is not regional in that sense. However, he also knows that the Department has suggested to the boards that they negotiate the funding of the revenue element with the hospices, and that applies to the Foyle hospice. I hope that the discussions that I believe are about to take place between the Western board and the Foyle hospice will lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

When my hon. Friend next considers the funding of hospices in Northern Ireland, will he also consider funding for hospices in the north-west, such as those at Oldham and Rochdale?

Up to now I have not considered that, but I shall bring it to the notice of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State who has responsibility for health matters in Northern Ireland.

The Minister said that he hoped that the discussions to which he referred would lead to a satisfactory conclusion, but will he confirm that the Government's view of a satisfactory conclusion includes funding the Foyle hospice, which not only serves the people of the Foyle area in a way that no hospice in Belfast can, but serves the region across the border and so builds the type of cross-border relationships that must be necessary? Will he confirm that the Government's view is that the hospice should be funded?

Of course, the hospice has to be funded. Up to now it has not been considered to be a regional hospice, and I do not see why it should be. But, as I said, it is an important movement, which has been supported at all levels in the Derry area, and the Government and the Department have been saying through their policy that we look to the Western board to come to a satisfactory conclusion with the hospice.

I welcome the additional funds, having pressed for them in the past, and I should like to share in the tribute that has been paid to the hospice movement, but am I right to infer that it is looked upon as a regional service? If so, does that mean that there will be Government limitations on developments in Foyle, Newry or anywhere else where voluntary bodies come together?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has been a great supporter of the hospice movement and has done much to enable it to develop throughout Northern Ireland. As I said, the funds are earmarked for the boards and it is up to them to negotiate how those funds will be distributed in each area. The aim of the Government and the Department is to move to a 50 per cent. funding arrangement with the hospices.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will propose that the secretariat for the Anglo-Irish Conference be transferred to Dublin.

No, Sir. I have no current plans to make such a proposal.

Was the location of the secretariat in Northern Ireland part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? If not, does the Secretary of State agree that if it were to spend half the year in Dublin, the considerable security costs, which currently fall on the British taxpayer and none of which are borne by the Republic would be halved? Does he further agree that if it were in Dublin, it would enable the Irish Government to show that no matter what perverse judgments come from the Supreme Court, they stand by the good faith of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and, in particular, article I of that agreement?

Article 3 of the agreement says:

"A Secretariat shall be established by the two Governments to service the Conference on a continuing basis in the discharge of its functions as set out in this agreement."

Having confirmed that there is no reference whatever to Maryfield in the Anglo-Irish Agreement—news which will be welcomed throughout Northern Ireland—does the Secretary of State agree that that gives him the option to consider a different location for the Anglo-Irish secretariat, if there is any necessity for the secretariat? Will he confirm that our concept of the secretariat must have changed since the ruling by the Supreme Court of Dublin that the Dublin representatives have a constitutional imperative to pursue a united Ireland through their agencies, including the Anglo-Irish secretariat?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that I have that freedom, as exemplified in the article of the agreement that I read out, but, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), I do not currently have such a proposal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not accept the premise that was contained in the second part of his question.

Does the Secretary of State recall that when the Government's salesmen were attempting to sell the advantages of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the Unionist community, they put forward two premises—that there would be recognition of Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom by the Government of the Irish Republic, and that there would be better co-operation on security, including extradition? Now that those two claims have been blown out of the water by the Supreme Court of the Irish Republic, will the Secretary of State list for the House the remaining advantages of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that could not be obtained from other sources?

That is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the events, but he made a specific reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court. We do not accept the claim to Northern Ireland in article 2 of the Irish constitution. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in our law and our international law. It is important that we look to the future. Successive Irish Governments have accepted the factual status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Article 1 of the agreement provides that any change to the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to extradition matters that we have raised with the Irish Government through the secretariat.

Irrespective of the location of the secretariat, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much fairer if both Governments shared the costs?

I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend's steady fiscal attitude, but I am also concerned with the efficiency of the secretariat, and that is most efficiently conducted in Belfast.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about inward investment into Northern Ireland.

We have achieved a number of notable inward investment successes during the past two years, and I am confident that we shall be able to build on those successes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those successes demonstrate the confidence of overseas investors in the economy of Northern Ireland? Can he say from which countries the investment is principally coming?

It is not always appreciated how great the change in the fortunes of the Northern Ireland economy has been over the past few years and how it is growing. In the past year we have had Fruit of the Loom from the United States—the single largest American investment in Northern Ireland for 10 years—Daewoo from Korea, Montupet from France and Holian from Hong Kong. We are about to announce a German company coming soon to the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and another company coming from Japan. We have Harris Laboratories from the United States. We are creating thousands of new jobs from inward investment in Northern Ireland because the people who come there realise what a wonderful place it is and what wonderful people we are.

Does the Minister agree that, within a reasonable time after interview, officials of the Industrial Development Board should be capable of providing a new business promoter with a letter of offer indicative of the support that might be forthcoming from the IDB? Does he further agree that every inquiry must be treated seriously and with sensitivity, to ensure that we do not lose anyone who might ultimately locate in Northern Ireland?

Of course, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It is crucial that the scope and scale of inward investment is fully understoood before the IDB—a body which spends taxpayers' money—makes an indicative offer. Subject to that, an indicative offer can and should be made.

Does the Minister accept that the bombings in Castlederg and Ballymena have hampered his efforts to attract inward investment to the Province? What encouragement have the Government given to investment in the Mid-Ulster constituency which has suffered so much from unemployment? Is it not true that it is better to have a stable environment, with the defeat of terrorism, and to allow the jobs that have been set up to remain, rather than, after years of hard work by the Department, to allow the IRA to demolish that in a few seconds with a bomb?

I am pleased to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman for once. The recent damage at Castlederg was another dreadful, exasperating and pointless blow to that little town. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we are establishing a project in Castlederg, which will involve all its people, to find a way forward, to attract investment and to bring the community together to rebuild its soul. For maniacs to blow apart the wishes of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland is utterly despicable.

Does the Minister agree that if the poll tax were introduced in Northern Ireland, it would greatly affect inward investment? Does he know—and will he condemn it—that East Antrim Conservative association has called for the implementation of the poll tax in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is a member of that association? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that all of them are infected with mad cow disease.

The community charge is unlikely to have any effect on inward investment in Northern Ireland. One of the incentives that we offer is that people do not have to pay rates. That is one of the main reasons for people wishing to invest in Northern Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to develop the tourism potential of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote tourism in Northern Ireland.

Encouraging progress is being made in implementing our published strategy for improving the economic return from tourism in Northern Ireland.

Does the Minister agree that, with the obvious exception of Southend-on-Sea, Northern Ireland is probably one of the most delightful places to enjoy a holiday? Will he use the powers of British embassies to destroy Northern Ireland's unfair reputation abroad and to explain that one can enjoy a holiday and delightful scenery and expect much hospitality at a low cost in Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I spent a holiday with my family in Northern Ireland two years ago, and it was one of the best holidays that I have ever had. I am sure that it will not be too long before you, Mr. Speaker, spend a holiday in Northern Ireland golfing, walking, sailing, eating, drinking, or pony trekking. We must increase the number of people employed in tourism, which at present is only 9,000 compared with 90,000 in the Republic. Once people have spent a holiday in Northern Ireland, they come back time and again.

Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), does my hon. Friend agree that agriculture can be supplemented by tourism as a major revenue earner in all parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that those who visit the countryside of Northern Ireland are as much at risk from terrorism as from a case of snakebite?

Yes, or mad cow disease for that matter. Some 1 million people visited Northern Ireland last year—the first time that that figure had been achieved since 1969. We have set ourselves the objective of raising that figure to 1·6 million by 1994. Next year is Ulster-Canada year, when we expect to double the number of Canadians visiting Ulster. We shall have a tremendous festival in Belfast so that the city can have a year of fun and enjoyment, and everyone here is welcome.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Belfast city airport on achieving such an impressive record in passenger throughput in the limited time that it has been in operation? Will he assure the House that in the event of Bombardier geting rid of that valuable asset, a monopoly will not then be created whereby the Northern Ireland international airports might be interested in taking over Belfast city airport? Will he further ensure that Belfast city airport will be encouraged to develop as a single entity?

Airports are not my responsibility, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who is responsible, has listened carefully to the question.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that a recent article by Mr. Bert O'Hara, who is the executive director of the Northern Ireland tourist board, in the The House Magazine sets out clearly how well tourism is doing in Northern Ireland. The Minister referred to the figure of 1·12 million people who have visited Northern Ireland in the past 12 months to take a holiday. We welcome the increase in that figure and hope that it will continue. Will the Minister comment on a rather interesting suggestion from Dr. William Hastings, the president of the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce and industry? He addressed a meeting recently and called for

"a chamber of tourism for all Ireland."

Certainly for tourism to succeed in the north, it must be carried out in co-operation with the south and with Bord Failte. I have no doubt that we shall build on those links because we have an awful lot to offer to anyone who comes from the south and who would like to spend a few extra days in the north with us. I always listen carefully to the views of Dr. Hastings and we shall see what further links we can build between north and south to attract more people to come.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that single questions at Question Time mean that we can get further down the Order Paper, which is for the benefit of the whole House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the hon. Member for South Down may expect an answer to his written question of 5 March about the appointment of the permanent third anaesthetist post to the Down group of hospitals in Downpatrick.

The answer was given on 15 March 1990.

Does the Minister agree that for the anaesthetist's post not to be filled at Down hospital for two years is a public health hazard? Is he aware that the anaesthetists at Down hospital have a work load two and a half times that at Belfast City hospital? Will he intervene with the board, as his noble Friend the Under-Secretary did last September, when he insisted on compulsory competitive tendering to save a few pounds? Will the hon. Gentleman intervene now and direct the board to appoint a permanent anaesthetist to save a few lives?

The hon. Gentleman and I have been corresponding on the third anaesthetist consultant post at Down hospital for almost as long as I can remember. I wrote to him in February 1989 saying that a third consultant post was to be advertised. I also wrote to him in July 1989 saying that it would be a locum post while anaesthetist cover was examined not only for Down hospital, but for Lagan hospital and the others in the area. I realise the difficulties there, which must be sorted out. The hon. Gentleman is in discussion with the chairman of the board and I shall pass on his points to my noble Friend. The hon. Gentleman has been told exactly what the position is.

Is not there a real need for improvement in communications between the Department of Health and Social Services and the various health boards in the light of the experience of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and in the light of my own experience? It took the Department three solid months to reply to me saying that it had passed a constituent's problem to the relevant health board.

If there has been an error between the Department and the health board, I am sure that the Department will apologise for it. Generally speaking, I have found that relationships between the boards, the Department, Ministers and the chairman are very good and work extremely well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of recovery of money from the De Lorean car company and associated ventures.

So far, £12·6 million has been recovered. A number of claims are still being pursued in this country and abroad.

Does the Minister accept that I warned Labour and Conservative Governments, who poured £84 million into the venture, that it was fraudulent from the very beginning? I suggest that the Minister should ask some of the social services inspectors, who are busy hounding single-parent families, to turn their attention to the outstanding sums of money. In particular, will he assure the House that he will pursue the recovery of the £20 million that was spirited away by Lotus Cars through GPD Investments?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's long connection with and involvement in that matter. I am also aware of what went wrong. We shall continue to pursue all the money that we can in every available court here, the United States and Switzerland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who sat on the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into that disgraceful affair want to know how my right hon. Friend is getting on with his legal action against Arthur Andersen and also why no one has been brought to trial for the criminal swindling which was clearly revealed in the report?

I am not prepared to discuss in detail the current litigation against Arthur Andersen except to say that it is continuing. The Serious Fraud Office is continuing its inquiries into the matter and one person is currently on remand to Belfast magistrates court in connection with that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.

A White Paper on privatisation proposals will be published later this year.

I thank the Secretary of State for that unusually helpful answer. Will he give us a likely estimate of the increase in electricity prices that will flow from privatisation on the one hand and from decoupling from the Great Britain link on the other? Can he also give us an idea of the number of jobs that are likely to be lost as a consequence of privatisation?

Earlier this month I announced the increase in the tariff as from 1 April. That statement was made in the context of present circumstances. The Government have nothing further to say on tariffs at present and will certainly not speculate about tariff levels beyond the coming year. The principle underlying tariffs in the future will be that of charging the economic price Car producing and delivering electricity efficiently in Northern Ireland.

May I make it dear that I am totally opposed to the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply because once that monopoly is placed in private hands, the price of electricity, which is already far higher than in Scotland, will increase to the detriment of industrial and domestic consumers in Northern Ireland who already suffer the highest cost of living in the United Kingdom? I say to the Government, 'Hands off our electricity."

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear beyond peradventure his attitude towards privatisation. However, as he knows, appropriate measures of regulation will accompany the introduction of privatisation.

The Secretary of State will recall that some months ago the Minister of State promised that we would have a White Paper on privatisation in the near future. That statement was made at the back end of last year, but there is still no sign of the White Paper. Will the Secretary of State tell us when, or if, that White Paper will see the light of day?

I have already said that it will be published kW this year. The -near future- is an elastic term in Northern Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Court case brought by the Government following restrictions made by the Irish Government on the free movement of shoppers from that country.

The case against the Government of the Republic of Ireland was brought by the Europe= Commission, and was heard by the European Court of Justice on 21 February when the United Kingdom Government was represented by Treasury counsel who advanced our view that the restrictions were contrary to European law and damaging to the economy of Northern Ireland. The Advocate-General of the court delivered his opinion on 21 March, but a date has not yet been fixed for the court's judgment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the Irish Government are persisting with this absurd restriction,, which will have to go? Will not that be much to the benefit not only of traders, but of Irish consumers?

Yes. We have made it clear, not only through the courts, which I have just mentioned, but to Irish Ministers, through the Anglo-Irish Conference and in other ways, that we completely oppose the 48-hour rule. It has been in force for too long; the sooner it goes, the better.

Is the Minister aware that the Sealink and rail services from Northern Ireland to south-west Scotland are used by many shoppers who travel between those two parts of the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that British Rail is planning to axe the sleeper service from Stranraer to Euston? What representations has the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. and hon. Friends made to British Rail about this? If they have not made any such representations, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will make representations to British Rail to stop the axing of that vital service?

It must be a matter for British Rail. Not many people use that service. In any case, it does not arise out of this question, which is about travellers from the Republic of Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had recently with Ministers of the Republic of Ireland about the extradition of convicted or suspected terrorists from the Republic.

Extradition matters were discussed at the latest meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference on 2 March. I have not had the opportunity to speak to Ministers of the Republic of Ireland since the disappointing outcome of the Finucane and Clarke hearings, but I hope to do so shortly.

In the light of the recent case of Dermot Finucane and James Clarke, does my right hon. Friend now agree that the Republic of Ireland is a safe haven for terrorists and that that seriously undermines the validity of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Would not it be better to negotiate and to come to an agreement with Ulster Unionists rather than with a Government who appear to support terrorists?

At the time of the extradition judgments, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in the House that the judgments might give some people the impression that terrorists would have a safe haven in the Republic. The Anglo-Irish Agreement continues to be a serviceable instrument for the discussion of such matters, and in that respect we shall continue to support it.

Will the Secretary of State protest in the most strenuous manner at the judgment by a majority of Supreme Court judges in the Irish Republic who ruled that political exemption from extradition should

"apply to persons charged with politically motivated offences when the objective of such offences was to secure the ultimate unity of the country"?

The Irish Government have been left in no doubt, through the secretariat, of the strength of our feelings about the judgment to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which he will recall elicited astonishment in the Republic. I agree that the implications for future extradition cases from the Republic, especially those relating to the political offence exception, are extremely serious. However, I do not go as far as the hon. Getleman's final interpretation.

Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Government of the Irish Republic that it is most desirable to remove articles 2 and 3 from the constitution of the Irish Republic? Will he assure the House that he has made such representations, either directly or through the framework of the secretariat?

My hon. Friend is correct to refer to articles 2 and 3, as they relate to the Supreme Court's judgment. In answer to an earlier question, I made quite clear the Government's attitude towards articles 2 and 3.

The Secretary of State says that the Government of the Irish Republic have been left in no doubt as to his strength of feeling. Am Ito understand that he now understands the full meaning of the judgment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) referred?

I did not entirely catch the hon. Gentleman's question, but I point out that the court's judgment has obviously been subjected to considerable scrutiny with a view to the conversations that we shall be having in the future.

Has my right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear.

Ah!

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask his question sitting down?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is nice to get a little sympathy.

I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House in expressing sympathy with my hon. Friend for his injuries.

Does the Secretary of State accept that our overriding concern must be to ensure that offenders are brought to justice—not where they are brought to justice? Given that the use of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act does not excite the same controversy as extradition, should not the right hon. Gentleman and his Irish counterpart consider means of increasing the number of cases that are tried under that legislation?

The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise that issue, but it is really one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many enterprise agencies are currently operating; and if he will make a statement.

Twenty six, and a further six agencies are at an advanced stage of negotiation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that enterprise is the key to success in Northern Ireland? How many jobs and how many industrial units are currently being provided by enterprise agency networks in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is Conservative Governments who constantly support enterprise?

Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. In Northern Ireland we have 800 units, in which 26,000 people are employed. The key to the success of Northern Ireland's economy is the private sector and the creation of small businesses. In that regard, we have a very good record, which will improve.

Does the Minister agree that if this agency is to achieve its aims, it must have a skilled work force at its disposal? Can he explain the remark of the Secretary of State for Employment on 27 March? Referring to training credits, the Secretary of State said:

"There are no present plans to extend the scheme to Northern Ireland.—[Official Report, 27 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 215.]

We are just about to launch the Training and Employment Agency, which we believe is the first step in substantially improving the skills of our work force. We have a very good education system and many skills, but we believe that we can do much better. The best way of achieving this is through the Training and Employment Agency. Of course, at some stage in the future we shall consider what further steps need to be taken, and whether we should come closer to the system in the rest of the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Official Report, I March, column 370, what consideration he has given to allegations that the Army informed the Royal Ulster Constabulary of what was going on at the Kincora boys' home before 24 January 1980.

Various statements have been made by individuals, but all these allegations were available and were investigated as fully as possible by the RUC and by Sir George Terry six years and more ago. If anyone has new evidence, will he please put it to the police?

Have Ministers changed their minds about the authenticity of the two Army documents to which Michael Taylor, the former Army information officer at the time, referred on "Channel 4 News" last night? The Minister asks for new information. It came from Broderick and from others involved in the programme. Who was right—Ministers or the people who bore witness last night on "Channel 4 News"?

I saw the news programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I am in no position to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the RUC forensic report was inconclusive. That has been known for a long time. As to the individuals who made statements on the programme, all the allegations that were repeated yesterday have been investigated, but we stand ready to look at new evidence if it comes forward. I did not detect any in the programme last night, but I am having the transcript of it carefully examined to see whether there is any new evidence there.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be speaking at the Anglo-German Koenigswinter conference dinner to be held in Cambridge.

Will the Prime Minister take time off from her engagements to investigate why the out-patient vehicle service in Cheshire has not been raised from the skeleton level to which it was reduced during the ambulance dispute? Is not it wrong that her Government are cost-cutting at the expense of the sick, the infirm and the disabled? Instead of the Prime Minister giving her usual outmoded and outdated statistics on the Health Service, will she take steps immediately to bring that inhuman treatment of patients to an end?

I shall refer the detailed matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I do not give the House outdated statistics. This year, according to contemporary statistics, the taxpayer has contributed an extra £2·4 billion to the National Health Service and next year the taxpayer will be contributing a further £3 billion to the NHS. The total figure was £7·5 billion a year when I came into No. 10 Downing street: now the taxpayer will contribute £29 billion a year to the National Health Service.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

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

When my right hon. Friend sees Chancellor Kohl tomorrow, will she explain to him that the British people understand Germany's desire for unification, but that they want to be sure that it will strengthen Europe's security and stability and that it will mean the united Germany being a member of NATO, and the presence of British and American forces, with nuclear weapons, on German soil?

My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that be win be listened to carefully because I understand that he was one of the parliamentary observers at the recent East German elections. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Chancellor Kohl has been very firm in his support of NATO and of a united Germany being in NATO. He has also been very firm in his support for American troops and nuclear weapons being stationed on German soil. Those are vital for the future defence of freedom.

If the Prime Minister had her time again, would she still introduce the poll tax?

Yes, Sir.

I am very grateful for that reply— [Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister think that if they had their time again, her hon. Friends would vote for the poll tax?

Yes. It is infinitely—[Interruption.]

Order.

It is infinitely preferable to a rating revaluation, which would put a colossal burden on half the people who reside in local authority areas, and it is infinitely preferable to Labour's roof tax and local income tax.

The Prime Minister must be just about the last person in the country who believes all that claptrap. The people of Britain know that from Sunday they will have imposed on them a tax of monstrous injustice and cost, and it win have been imposed by her Government. It is incompatible with democracy.

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman wisely keeps silent about his own policy of a roof tax plus a local income tax—[interruption.] Of course he does, because the moment he enunciates a policy it is blown sky-high.

My right hon. Friend will know that the whole House is deeply concerned about the discovery of nuclear triggers destined for Iraq, about which there will be a statement later. There has been a steady now of defensive weapons and technology to Iraq over the years. Will my right hon. Friend get together with our European friends as a matter of urgency and institute a meeting to try to stop the flow of this technology and equipment to Iraq and to preserve peace in the middle east?

My hon. Friend is right. The attempted spread of nuclear weapons is very serious and Customs are to be congratulated on having foiled an effort to spread them further. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be answering a private notice question, during which he win make a full statement. In the meantime, we shall urgently be contacting the signatories to the non-proliferation treaty and the missile technology control regime to see what we can do to prevent a repeat of this serious incident.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister think it right that over 42,000 student nurses in Britain on low incomes should have to pay the full rate of poll tax?

Before long, most student nurses—those who are not yet registered as full nurses—will be on Project 2000. That means that they will be paid a bursary and treated fully as ordinary students: therefore. they will pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. Before long, most of them will be on that system. [Interruption.] In the meantime, some student nurses who are in receipt of a salary will be treated like all other trainees who are in receipt of a salary. If the salary were very low, they would be eligible for rebate, but most of them will be paying the community charge in full. That was taken into account in the recent pay award and the speed at which it was implemented.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about the teaching of English history in our schools? Instead of teaching only what are called themes, why cannot we go back to the good old days when we learnt by heart the names of the kings and queens of England, the names of our warriors and battles and the glorious deeds of our past? [Interruption.]

Order. I am sure that the whole House wants to hear the reply.

As usual, my hon.. Friend is absolutely right. What children should be taught in history is the subject of vigorous debate I agree with him. Most of us are expected to learn from experience of history and we cannot do that unless we know it. Children should know the great landmarks of British history and should be taught them at school.

Will the Prime Minister recall with me that 16 years ago, 21 working-class people were having a quite drink in public houses in Birmingham when they were blown to pieces by the IRA? Does she agree that there is no greater injustice than an atrocity of that nature because it cannot be changed and those people cannot come out of their graves? Does she further agree that the wave of anger and emotion that swept Britain following that atrocity was both natural and understandable?

Most of us recall the scenes of that terrorist act, and the great tragedy will live with some families for ever. But we do not conduct trial by television. The place to put any new evidence is with the police. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that if there is any fresh evidence in the meantime, of course, it will be looked at carefully. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of investigations that are under way with the chief constables of the West Midlands and of Devon and Cornwall to inquire into the latest evidence. Then it will be for the prosecuting authorities and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to decide whether any further action should be taken, bearing in mind that there has already been one rehearing by the Court of Appeal, which gave a very detailed judgment.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the need for her trade union electoral reforms was never more obvious than in recent weeks with the dubious electoral practices of the Transport and General Workers Union—the union which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition?

All our measures on trade union reform were well judged and have been of great benefit to ordinary members of trade unions. I hope that one day the Transport and General Workers Union will take a move to the right. It will be very welcome.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning her press secretary quietly briefed the press that no new developments have occurred in the past few days in the Birmingham pub bombing case? Would not the appropriate course of action be for the Home Secretary to come to the House and say that out loud so that hon. Members can ask the many questions that arise?

No. A television programme alters nothing. We do not have trial by television, and the day we do, the rule of law will have left this country for good. The only thing that matters in a court of law is evidence and the only thing that matters in reopening a case is whether there is any fresh evidence. I am not yet aware that there is, but if there is, that matter will be fully taken into account by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend accept that she has many friends and admirers in this House? [Interruption.] Does she also accept that there was a need to change our system of local government finance? But the poll tax has become friendless even among those who gain most because they do not recognise it as fair or as based upon people's ability to pay. Can we set ourselves upon a path on which ability to pay plays a bigger part than where one happens to live, fortunately or unfortunately?

First, ability to pay is taken care of by the most generous community charge rebates this country has ever known. Every penny of those rebates is taken care of by the taxpayer. Secondly, the majority of expenditure of local authorities is met not by the community charge payer, but by the taxpayer. The taxpayer is part of a progressive system of tax under which, of course, the rich pay far more than the poor. Those are two facts. I can think of nothing more unfair than a system of rating that ensured that half the people who voted for local authorities did not pay a penny piece.