To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the manner of consultation by the Eastern health and social services board in respect of its document statement of intent for general acute hospital services within the Eastern board area.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Eastern health and social services board is currently consulting on its "Statement of Intent for General Acute Hospital Services" and this process is due to end on 14 May. I understand that the board is making strenuous efforts to consult as widely as possible, and it is engaged in an intensive programme of meetings with public representatives and local communities.

Is the Minister aware that many of the delegations to the Eastern health and social services board have been refused explanations of the terminology of the statement of intent on such important factors as split-site operations, midwifery-led obstetrics, intermediate and day surgical procedures, accident and emergency provision services and consultant staffing? If the board is unable to clarify to delegations what those terms mean, how can the Minister say that that is consultation? Will he intervene to ensure that people's statutory right to consultation is properly executed and fulfilled?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that matter to my attention. It is always open to anybody who is unsatisfied with the avenues of consultation to write to my noble Friend Lord Arran, the Minister with responsibility for health and social services in Northern Ireland, and let him know of their dissatisfaction. The consultation process will end on 14 May and the board will have until the end of July to make its recommendations. There will then be further public consultation, when people can put questions directly to my noble Friend and I hope that they will take every opportunity to do so.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern throughout the area of the Eastern health and social services board about the proposed changes? Will he therefore ensure that the suggested consultation is widespread and includes the people themselves, so that those such as my constituents the Costello family can give their view on the services being handed out by the board? Is the Minister aware that it took one hour and five minutes for a cardiac ambulance to arrive 20 minutes after Mr. Costello had died? Will the Minister look into that matter and examine the services provided by the board as they are thoroughly inadequate and need to be reviewed and improved?

The hon. Gentleman refers to a most distressing case which I read about yesterday in the Belfast Newsletter. The hon. Gentleman has written to my noble Friend about the case. I assure him that the Ulster, North Down and Ards hospital health and social services trust is investigating the matter. Lord Arran will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as those researches have been completed.

Does the Minister share the concern of delegations to the board, who have described it as a dialogue with the deaf? That may be an insult to the deaf community. Does the Minister accept that if the board sets down criteria for judgment and then moves away from those criteria, it has moved the goalposts? Will he ask the board to refrain from implementing the suggestions on maternity provision in the board's area until the Department's new working party has made its recommendations?

Again, all that I can say is that my information is that the board is carrying out its responsibilities conscientiously. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular complaints, he should address them to my noble Friend. I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave earlier as to the further consultation process which is available.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact on jobs in Northern Ireland of the proposed distribution of EC cohesion funding.

The United Kingdom and, therefore, Northern Ireland does not qualify for assistance from the cohesion fund agreed at Maastricht. However, the retention of objective 1 status, as agreed at Edinburgh, for the next round of funding will ensure that Northern Ireland continues to benefit substantially from the three structural funds that are the main instruments for strengthening cohesion throughout the Community.

Does it not seem desperately unfair to the people of Northern Ireland that the EC proposes to provide about £1,000 million over six years for the Republic of Ireland and not one penny for Northern Ireland? Does the Minister accept that employers in ports and other transport institutions in Northern Ireland cannot see the logic of a Conservative Government's giving their cash to provide jobs in the Republic of Ireland when the only effect will be to destroy jobs in Northern Ireland?

On the contrary, any money that comes into the island tends to help the already fast-moving experience of co-operation between north and south in trade and business and in the general flow of goods across the border. It is not true to suggest, as my hon. Friend does, that not one penny of funds is coming to Northern Ireland. Many millions of pounds are coming into Northern Ireland, but under arrangements other than the cohesion fund, which is available to only four members of the Community.

Does the Minister agree that, as the cohesion fund was set up under his Government's presidency, the exclusion of Northern Ireland constitutes extreme neglect? As Northern Ireland is an objective 1 region, which means that it has been designated as one of the poorest regions in the European Community, as the cohesion fund is specifically for transport and the environment, and as Northern Ireland has the same offshore problems involving transport and the environment as the Republic of Ireland, does the Minister not think that we should have been treated exactly the same and does he think that he can correct that serious neglect on the part of whoever represented the Government when the fund was set up?

The hon. Gentleman suffers under the misapprehension that the cohesion fund is available to the poorer regions of the Community, whereas in fact it is available only to the poorer countries. There are other funds available to poor regions, and objective 1 status, which the Government won at Edinburgh last November, is a considerable improvement. For as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, it has to take the gains and losses of that membership.

With regard to developments that have an impact on jobs in Northern Ireland, is my hon. Friend in a position to give us further details about the training centres and the market testing of those centres? Presumably those would have a positive impact on jobs in Northern Ireland.

It is too early for me to be able to give my hon. Friend any details about that. We have not yet heard what funds will be provided in this round, but as a result of the previous funds available from the Community many, many jobs were created in Northern Ireland.

The Minister will be aware that the European Community has financed many cross-border initiatives by using the cohesion fund and objective 1 status funds. Does he agree with me and with Dr. Quigley, the chairman of the Ulster Bank, that the present definition of "cross-border" is too narrow? The relevant geographical area in the south has usually been considered to include only the counties contiguous with the north. Should not the term "cross-border" be redefined to embrace the totality of economic relationships within the island, and should not the EC regard the island economy as a whole as the relevant entity and direct its attention to the needs of that economic area?

I fully agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and we are working hard to increase co-operation. I have made some proposals to my colleagues in the Government of the Republic that when we go to Brussels to seek to improve some of the arrangements we should go together and speak for the whole island. I very much hope that they will respond to those proposals.

Is not the Minister really saying to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government advise that we would be far better as part of one united Ireland rather than as part of the United Kingdom? They always try to equate or link us with the Irish Republic. For example, a few days ago when we were pleading for more money for potato farmers and money was available in the south of Ireland, they said, "Ah, but if you were all one you would get the money." Surely that is skulduggery at the highest level.

I think "skulduggery" might be a bit of poetic licence. The hon. Gentleman is looking at this one fund in isolation. If it is looked at in isolation, it has to be said that the Republic gains more than we in the United Kingdom gain, because we are not eligible for it. The hon. Gentleman should look at all the other advantages that membership of the United Kingdom conveys on Northern Ireland. The totality of the advantages should be put together and then put to the majority in Northern Ireland for them to decide how they want to live.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints have been reported in the past year regarding glass-fronted fires in Housing Executive dwellings.

This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the chief executive that between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993 there were approximately 35,200 requests for repairs to glass-fronted fires in Executive dwellings. Over 97 per cent. were of a minor nature, such as a cracked or broken pane of glass.

In view of the great concern about those appliances and their flues and the fear that many tenants, particularly the elderly, have about them, will the Minister take the initiative and set up a committee or a consultative group—to include members of his Department, the Housing Executive, the manufacturers of the appliances and any other interested parties who have the expertise—to sort out this problem once and for all? Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do that?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking the question in the way he has. I know that he has given a great deal of attention to this problem over some years. The Housing Executive is responsible in the first instance. It has told me that it is aware of the concerns and is doing all that it can to ensure that proper training in the use of the fires is given, and that tenants understand what they are required to do to keep the equipment efficient throughout its lifetime. I shall, of course, communicate the hon. Gentleman's concern to the Housing Executive.

With regard to glass-fronted fires and the fumes—including carbon monoxide—that can be associated with them, will the Secretary of State make a statement detailing the number of people in my constituency and elsewhere in Northern Ireland who, in the past 10 years, have taken the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to court on the ground of damage to their health, including the number of cases that were successful or settled out of court? A number of people in Northern Ireland have died as a direct result of the fires—one recently in the constituency of Newry and Armagh—and probably many hundreds more have died as an indirect result of the fumes, even though the words "due to glass-fronted fire" were not on the death certificate.

I think that the hon. Gentleman would be astonished if I were able to give the answer on the Floor of the House. I will ascertain the answer and write to the hon. Gentleman.

On a previous occasion when a question of this sort was asked in the House, I suggested that what was required in Northern Ireland was not constitutional arrangements by which America or the south was invited to offer impertinent advice, but that the sooner the Government got on with instituting a proper system of local government in Northern Ireland the better. I recollect that on that occasion the Secretary of State nodded in agreement. What is happening about that?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend's question and will doubtless find ways to tell my hon. Friend exactly what is going on.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what investigations he has carried out into alternatives to water privatisation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

As always in such circumstances, I have considered a number of options for the future of water. Nevertheless, the Government remain committed to water privatisation as soon as practicable. It was originally anticipated for 1995–96, but our financial advisers suggest that some technical problems which have to be addressed will delay it beyond the lifetime of this Parliament.

I welcome the announcement that, albeit for technical reasons, water in Northern Ireland will not be privatised during the life of this Government. That can only lead us to anticipate the next Government and the assurance that the Labour party has already given that it will not be privatising water.

There is no secret about the technical reasons—

What are they, then?

If the hon. Lady will wait, I shall tell her. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied to a debate on an earlier occasion, he was not able to give the details then because there were other matters in hand that he was addressing. There are, however, three reasons.

rose

Order. We do not want ministerial statements. I should be much happier if we could have brisker questions and brisker answers so that we may make progress.

When my hon. Friend deliberates on water privatisation, and bearing in mind his reference a moment ago to the £500 million cost of the EC water purity directives, will he also consider the fact that that kind of investment by the taxpayer was not made when South West Water was privatised? When my hon. Friend considers water privatisation, will he bear in mind the fact that daft European directives can cost an enormous amount of money, not just to the taxpayer? Particularly in the south-west of England, it is our bitter experience that it has been a huge cost to the water charge payers.

I apologise for the length of my previous answer, but I was asked for the technical reasons and I had to spell them out.

In view of the reply given to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), will the Minister explain to the House what is happening to the £10 million allocated for the investigation into the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland? How much has been spent on the consultants appointed by the Minister's Department and how much is left in the fund? Will he agree to channel that money into other causes in Northern Ireland to improve the quality of life of the people—in particular, the bypass of the township of Omagh in County Tyrone?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. It is worth reminding the House, however, that if one enters into any project, including a privatisation project, it is necessary to have specialised technical advice. These days, that costs money. If we had not obtained that specialised advice, we would be open to legitimate criticism from Opposition Members and others. In terms of the costs expended, I believe that that is value for money. Clearly, however, we have to spend more on investment projects such as those asked for by the hon. Gentleman. The kind of money to which I referred, for example, in respect of the water quality directives from the EC, will require expenditure of up to £500 million. That is a lot of money which will have to be found by the taxpayer. That is why we need private sector involvement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about non-denominational schools.

While many schools could be included in a strict definition of the term "non-denominational", I understand that my hon. Friend is specifically interested in the integrated schools. I am pleased to report that the continued growth in the integrated schools sector is impressive. I had the opportunity to discuss developments with representatives of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education during my visit to its offices recently.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, important as denominational schools may be, in the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland it is wise that children of all denominations should be taught in the same schools? If children grow up together, learn together and play together, they will not become loud-mouthed bigots when they grow up. How many children are currently educated in integrated schools in Northern Ireland?

At present, there are 14 integrated primary schools and four integrated secondary schools in Northern Ireland, and there are three more in the pipeline. Those schools teach just over 3,300 pupils.

Will the Minister ensure that controlled schools are treated on an equal basis with maintained schools? Will he give careful consideration to a recent statement by the leader of the Northern Ireland Anglican Church about a council for controlled schools, to be treated on an equal basis with that for Roman Catholic maintained schools?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is currently under way, after consultation, a review of the education administration in Northern Ireland, so the latter issue that he raised will naturally be considered. On the other point, the answer is that such schools have parity in terms or capital grants and individual payments of expenses once they have been set up.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. An hon. Member has referred to people who are not educated in integrated schools as "loud-mouthed bigots". I put it to you that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) should withdraw his remarks.

Order. That is hardly a point of order for me. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I will take it at the appropriate time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reform the Arts Council for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

On 30 March, I made a statement announcing the Government's decision to appoint a new Arts Council for Northern Ireland on a statutory basis. The chairman of the new body will be Mr. Donnell Deeny QC, and I have invited suggestions for membership. I have arranged for copies of my statement to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that Government support for expenditure on the arts has risen considerably in recent years in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the country? Therefore, is it not right that the Arts Council for Northern Ireland should be fully accountable to Parliament? Will my hon. Friend complement that by ensuring that there are links with district authorities so that there is also a local influence?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Expenditure on the arts in Northern Ireland has increased considerably in recent years. Following the recent announcement of an extra £300,000 at the end of the last financial year, we almost have parity per capita with Great Britain. My hon. Friend is right: because of extra expenditure, extra revenue and the proceeds that could flow from the national lottery, it is right that the Arts Council for Northern Ireland should be accountable to Parliament.

Is the Minister aware that in the past few years there has been increasing anxiety across the community in Northern Ireland that there is an imbalance of interest in the Arts Council and in particular that it does not give sufficient support or take sufficient interest in the cultural activities of the majority community in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that in future the Arts Council membership reflects the strength and supports the cultural interest of the majority community in Northern Ireland?

In the reform of the Arts Council in Northern Ireland I am pleased and regard it as highly desirable that the council's independence as the Government's advisers on our policies has been retained. It is therefore the decision taker on the allocation of resources for the arts. I hope that that will remain the position for good and all. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make his comments to the chairman. If he has any criticisms, he can take them up with the new Arts Council.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give an estimate of the amount of inward investment to Northern Ireland in the last five years and the number of extra jobs this has created.

During the past five years, 52 inward investment projects have been attracted to Northern Ireland, holding out on completion the prospect of 7,500 new jobs. Nearly 3,000 of those jobs have been created so far. Of those 39 projects that have received financial assistance from the Industrial Development Board, the total amount of inward investment to Northern Ireland is £400 million.

While I welcome that excellent news for the people of Northern Ireland, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that inward investment would be greatly increased if political talks were to start?

That must be so, as my hon. Friend says. I am grateful to him for his welcome of the figures that I have given. To the extent that there is dissension and, of course, paramilitary activity, that is a disincentive to inward investment. It is yet another illustration, if one were needed, of how absurd it is for those who take part in violence for political ends to claim that they act on behalf of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, or any section of them.

The Secretary of State will be aware that groupings in many towns throughout Northern Ireland are attempting to interest people in America and other places in inward investment and job creation in Northern Ireland. He will also be aware from his visits there that it is a difficult and arduous task. What plans does the Department of Economic Development have to assist in practical and financial ways those groupings, which are doing a good job against all the odds?

The parts of Northern Ireland of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, and the one that he represents, always have access to the Industrial Development Board in particular for assistance in that matter. We recognise the need to spread investment widely throughout the Province. But, of course, one cannot dictate to inward investors in what part of the Province they shall place their investment. That has to be left to them. To them, Northern Ireland is a small place. However, I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that I will encourage the IDB and any other suitable agency to give whatever assistance it can. I notice that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise relocated to the hon. Gentleman's constituency with 100 jobs. But I have to recognise that that was in 1990–91. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like something more recent.

It is unusual for me to ask a question in Northern Ireland time, but, while I understand the great need to attract inward investment to Northern Ireland and the difficulties that Northern Ireland has, does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that it should be done at the expense of British firms? In my constituency, the unemployment level is 12·2 per cent. Northern Ireland has offered to Montupet, a French firm, a product line in Northern Ireland. It is undercutting my constituency's product line on the ground that it has Government support. There must surely be free competition.

One of the IDB's considerations is the likely or potential impact that inward investment of a particular character might have on businesses already established in the United Kingdom. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that in Northern Ireland the unemployment rate is much greater than that of the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that the people of the United Kingdom as a whole would grudge the people of Northern Ireland, with the special problems that they face, the assistance they get through the IDB and other agencies.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the figures he mentioned in his original reply are minuscule compared with the need and that they compare unfavourably with the success of neighbouring regions? Will he confirm that it is the objective of the Industrial Development Board to attract investment to Northern Ireland? Will he then repudiate the recent sentiments expressed by the chairman of the IDB that all of Ireland should be treated as a single unit—a not surprising view because of the way in which the Irish Government effectively secured his appointment?

The hon. Gentleman pursued a number of hares. Anything that the extremely distinguished new chairman of the IDB has said is capable of speaking for itself. I do not regard the figures as minuscule or anything like it; nor would any of those who have benefited through jobs created welcome that description. The total jobs promoted, 7,500, is substantial and we look forward to more. In the past year, a substantial investment—£167 million—has been attracted. All of that is very much to the good right across the board in Northern Ireland.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how much of the new investment over that five-year period has come from the United States of America?

Not precisely. I will correct the figure if I am wrong, but something like 30 companies that are established in Northern Ireland are domiciled in the United States. The United States contributes substantially to the International Fund for Ireland and is an important investor in the Province. That was one reason why I was glad to welcomed the southern legislative conference of United States politicians a few months ago and, incidentally, to read what they said when they left—that they were determined to correct the image of Northern Ireland because they did not recognise the place that they visited against what the media showed in the United States.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department intends to take to offer those already receiving social security benefit extra payments fully to offset the increases in fuel bills after the levy of VAT at 8 and 17·5 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

In his recent Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that from April 1994 poorer pensioners and other poor families will get extra help. Details of the precise way in which the extra help will be provided will be announced in the autumn. Other social security beneficiaries will be assisted through the normal uprating mechanism.

Given the very high fuel costs in Northern Ireland, and the fact that already cold-related deaths each winter kill more people than even the terrorists, will the hon. Gentleman take action not only to protect social security payments but to provide a home energy efficiency programme so that the old and the cold may have some reassurance about the terrible proposal to put VAT on fuel?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who takes a keen interest in the matter, may welcome the fact that over the last five years there has been a reduction in real terms of between 6 and 7 per cent. in electricity costs in Northern Ireland, while I admit that costs are high. In addition, since February 1988, there has been a reduction in real terms of between 13 and 15 per cent. in the cost of solid fuel, including coal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is just as important to ensure that energy is used efficiently as to ensure that benefits are updated? Therefore, may I congratulate him and his Department on the steps taken to place a duty on the electricity industry in Northern Ireland to seek energy efficiency saving measures? The Environment Select Committee is about to embark on an inquiry into this and I hope that the Northern Ireland experience will be of help to my colleagues and me on that Committee.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that my colleagues on the Front Bench will welcome what he says. It is worth pointing out that the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel is designed for environmental protection. It is strange that the Labour party does not welcome that quite as much as it should when one considers that it said in its manifesto that it would consider increased use of the fiscal system to promote environmental protection.

Although I welcome the limited assurances about persons in receipt of various income benefits, will the Minister pay particular regard to the plight of the frugal poor who will be extremely hard hit by the application of VAT to domestic fuel?

The right hon. Gentleman speaks for many hon. Members when he expresses concern for that category of person, above income support levels, whom we should consider sympathetically. We will always try to increase benefit levels in line with need. I am sure that he would not want me to announce in advance any changes that might be considered to the upratings in November or April.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from private companies in Northern Ireland regarding new electricity generating capacity.

I have received a number of representations, but the responsibility for new generating capacity rests with Northern Ireland Electricity plc.

Could the Secretary of State clear up a mystery for me? Why is it that he and his junior Minister seem to favour an interconnector—which will scar my constituency—that will bring electricity from Scotland to Northern Ireland more expensively than cheaper electricity generated in Northern Ireland by lignite, coal or gas? What is the hidden agenda of the Northern Ireland Office on this matter?

The thinking of the Northern Ireland Office is that it will be a good thing if we can get some competition in the supply of electricity and the supply of fuel for electricity. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are 70 per cent. dependent on oil. That is why we want an interconnector to bring electricity from Scotland and that is why we shall have a gas interconnector, as requested by the hon. Gentleman. Northern Ireland Electricity will certainly take into account the claims of lignite when it starts the competition for the supply of further generating capacity, which it will need towards the end of this century.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend, when considering this matter, bear in mind the advantages to Scotland should an interconnector be put in place? Will he also bear in mind that many of us would like him and many of his colleagues in the Cabinet to look at European funds, which we see as our money, and get them back for the United Kingdom, if we can? The cost of an interconnector would be an admirable reason for receiving money from the cohesion fund or other funds.

I am glad to confirm to my hon. Friend that the European Community will contribute 35 per cent. of the cost of the electricity interconnector, if it receives the necessary planning permission. That fits in extremely well with the EC policy for trans-European networks. On that ground and on others, I believe that there are advantages for Northern Ireland and I am very glad to hear that there are also advantages for Scotland.

Does the Secretary of State understand that although we regret the steady increase in electricity costs—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman has the right to be heard in the House.

Perhaps the microphone is not working. We welcome the fact that, although the electricity costs are increasing, the Secretary of State has been able to phase them in over a much longer period than was previously thought. Because Northern Ireland depends upon electricity to such an extent, and given our need to use the cheapest possible sources of electricity, will he ensure that whenever the possible use of lignite is considered it will be allowed to compete on a level playing field?

The answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman is right in that there is considerable advantage in the phasing arrangements that I have announced. They will apply not only to large industrial users but to all 4,000 industrial users right across the board, not for two but for four years. So, as he acknowledges, that is a considerable alleviation. Also, nobody will have to pay more this year than a single figure increase.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the principal ports of Northern Ireland has carried the greatest tonnage of outward traffic in each year since 1987.

In 1987, the port of Lame carried the greatest tonnage of outward traffic, but in each year since then Belfast has carried the higher total.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the port of Larne on its investment of £7 million in a new quay? Is he aware that, contrary to earlier suggestions, a substantial amount of that money comes from the European Commission, from the European regional development fund?

Yes, Madam Speaker.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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.

Will my right hon. Friend welcome today's unemployment figures, down for the second month running and coming on top of an increase of1½ per cent. in manufacturing output and 2 per cent. in the retail sales figures—proof that the economy is growing in confidence? Does he agree that it is about time Opposition Members stopped prophesying gloom and doom about the economy?

This is only the second successive month, but today's fall in unemployment will be seen as very good news by everyone, especially the families of people now back in work. Especially welcome is the fact that the number of unemployed people has fallen in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in each and every region in England. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are signs of growing business and consumer confidence. I hope that in the future that will bring further good news on jobs, which everyone who wishes this country well will surely welcome.

While welcoming the fall—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in the official unemployment total announced today, is it not the case that a total of over 2,900,000 is still far too high and should never have been allowed to reach anything like that level? If the Prime Minister seeks to take credit for a fall of 26,000 in the official figures, is he equally prepared to accept responsibility for the million people who have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister, the vast majority of whom are still unemployed?

Grudging might be an appropriate word for that welcome, but I at least welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has this month, unlike last month, welcomed the fall in unemployment. Perhaps he might mention to the shadow Chancellor—who said even yesterday that unemployment would go on rising—that he should look more carefully in future.

Does the Prime Minister appreciate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—that unemployment at this continuing high level is in large part a reflection of the underlying weakness of an economy bedevilled by persistent under-investment in manufacturing and skills and menaced by a dangerously high balance of payments deficit? if the Government's economic policies are satisfactory, why are we suffering a multi-billion pound deficit in our balance of payments at a time of recession? What does the Prime Minister propose to do about that?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should lift his eyes. I know that he has to encourage his Back Benchers, but he should know that across Europe, 17 million people are unemployed and it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone except the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is the result of the international economy over many years. There are also 3 million unemployed in France. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants the answer to the question he should look at what is now happening in the economy. Car production figures last month were the highest for 19 years, a survey by the British chambers of commerce shows that business confidence is up, there has been the biggest growth in manufacturing exports for three years, surveys by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors all show good news. In addition, there are extra jobs at Toyota in Derbyshire, Ford in Dunton and Kimberly-Clark in Humberside. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcome what everyone else but him can see?

Why does the Prime Minister not answer the question that I asked him? Why was it predicted in the Budget that the balance of payments would deteriorate from £12 billion to 17·5 billion? Is there any other country in the European Community with such a miserable prospect?

The European Community as a whole has a deficit, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not know. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again changing horses. Every month he used to ask me about inflation, until it fell when he stopped talking about it. He then started talking about unemployment until it began to level off and fall. Now he has changed horses again. I have bad news for the right hon. and learned Gentleman: he is going to run out of things to whinge about.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

In replying to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend referred to the report of the British chambers of commerce. Did he see in that report that business confidence and business activity are both at high levels? Did he also note that the amount of export orders is at an all-time high? Given that trade union leaders, commentators and even economists now see an improvement—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Opposition do not like improvements. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, look forward to the time when all hon. Members will welcome good economic news and talk Britain up rather than whinge?

My hon. Friend, of course, is right. Any good news for the economy is bad news for the Labour party. There has been a range of encouraging economic news, but we wish to see far more—to that extent, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition. There has been a range of encouraging economic information—retail sales are up, exports are up, manufacturing output is up, car production is up, house sales are up and business confidence is up. That is leading to a position whereby Britain will be on the up.

Given the appalling record of Group 4 prison escort services, will the Prime Minister urge his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is the chairman of the Tory party, to resign from another Group 4 company?

No.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the overwhelming vote in Italy against proportional representation—[Interruption.] Does it not reinforce my right hon. Friend's view that the first-past-the-post system is the best one, and delivers decisive, democratic and honest government? Will he join me, 32 million Italians and the deputy Leader of the Opposition in recommending the first-past-the-post system to the Leader of the Opposition and the Front-Bench team?

This is, of course, a divisive issue, which divides, not least, the Labour party as to whether it is in favour of proportional representation. I have never made any secret of my views on proportional representation. It is one of the few matters on which I share the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. While others have tried to dance on the head of a pin during the election, the Conservative party campaigned four-square for the existing system. It has brought us over many decades stable and secure government. I hope that it will do the same for the Italians. The Italians are right to scrap the backstairs deals that inevitably come with PR.

Talking of back stairs, does the Prime Minister believe—

Back stairs

Order. All these interruptions are very time-consuming.

Does the Prime Minister believe that the provisions of the social chapter are popular or unpopular with the general public? Does he intend to include in his European speech this evening a passage expressing thanks to the leader of the Labour party for saving his political bacon in the referendum vote in the early hours of this morning?

I know that the hon. Gentleman will, as he always does, read my speech with great care—

Send him a letter.

I will not promise to send the hon. Gentleman a letter on this matter but, at the risk of leaking my own speech, he may not find the sentence that he seeks in it this evening.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend speed up the efforts being made to prevent British industry and commerce being stifled by over-regulation? Is he aware that there is still much evidence that officials are being over-zealous in the interpretations of health, safety and fire regulations, with the resulting damage to British commerce and industry?

My hon. Friend is entirely right that unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy—I emphasise the word unnecessary—stifle industry and enterprise. I also agree with him that we have to beware of over-implementation of regulations whether from Whitehall, Brussels, county hall or town hall. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my other right hon. Friends are all examining regulations to see what might satisfactorily be diluted or scrapped. This will be a continuing programme and I hope that we shall be able to bring measures before the House before too long.

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to restate his confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Would he like to describe his position as unsellable?

I know that I am keen on exports, but there is a limit.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the Thurlestone hotel in South Devon.

Although I have no current plans to do so, I will certainly bear the possibility in mind for my next visit to the west country. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage met the proprietor, Mr. David Grose, when he visited the area last Friday. I gather that the hotel has been in the same family since the 1890s and even in difficult times has been expanding its business.

When my right hon. Friend does come to the hotel, I think that he will be fascinated to take a look at the decor, because every room in the hotel is covered in a plethora of red tape. I suggest that the Prime Minister should get hold of the new officials who are zealously interpreting the rules and regulations and make sure that they do not destroy hotels and small businesses. In particular, he should have regard for the undercover operations of the hygiene police.

My hon. Friend is well known as a champion both of the south-west and of deregulation. I know how important both are to him and I will take careful note of what he has to say. We certainly wish to cut as much red tape as possible.

When the Prime Minister visits this hotel in Devon, will he give consideration to the fact that this generation of human beings is living through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world—a technological, telecommunications and transport revolution? Will he bear in mind that it means that the wealth of society is being created by far fewer people and that that in turn has great implications for the role of the state in the social and economic welfare of people? The Government should therefore be paying far greater attention to the role of the state in that capacity, instead of heading in the direction in which they are going: privatisation, survival of the fittest and, ultimately, the law of the jungle.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about the fact that this is likely to be one of the most rapidly changing decades in peacetime in the lifetime of even the most venerable Members in the House.