To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the resumption of the inter-party talks process and on talks he has had with the Irish Government.

I recently met the leaders of the three Northern Ireland parties involved in the bilateral discussions. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), is discussing our ideas at further meetings with the parties. At the intergovernmental conference on 10 March, both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to the search for a comprehensive political settlement covering the main relationships.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this is St. Patrick's day, when we celebrate a great man of peace? Bearing in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's responsibility to follow in the footsteps of that man of peace, what proposals does he have to bring the Ulster Unionist party back into the three-stranded talks process?

I acknowledge the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said—indeed, I have personal reasons to be pleased that it is St. Patrick's day.

In his discussions with the Dublin Government, has the Secretary of State agreed—as Mr. Reynolds said that he had in a recent Irish News article—on a definition of the word "consent" in the Downing street declaration? Under that definition, which the British and Irish Governments have agreed, there can be constitutional mutation which leads to a united Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and only the final legal act of severance requires consent.

There has been no such agreement.

Does the Secretary of State recall that, in the original scheme some four years ago, it was decided, and accepted by all concerned, that the first phase should concentrate on designing a workable, practical system of devolved government in Northern Ireland and that we would move, in due course, to discuss a possible relationship between that body and the Irish Government? Does the Secretary of State still feel that that was a natural order of progress?

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the statement of 26 March 1991 set out the three strands. It was arranged that there should be discussions on the first strand until the stage was reached when, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, it was appropriate to invite the Irish Government to join the discussions, to discuss matters connected with strands 2 and 3.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House—the callous brutality of the mortar attacks on Heathrow in the past week and of other terrorist atrocities notwithstanding—that the thrust for peace remains, that the Downing street declaration of December remains a vehicle for peace and that he will not let Sinn Fein and the IRA derail the thrust for peace through either the three-stranded talks or the declaration?

It was not only callous; it was extremely wicked to launch the attacks of which my hon. Friend speaks. The declaration stands as a freestanding declaration of principle, of consent and of rejection of violence. If Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA considers that, by violence, it can secure a departure from the declaration or any concession from the British Government, it would be better employed taking a running jump. There is to be no concession and no departure.

May I bring greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and all Members of the House on this St. Patrick's day from the Hill of Patrick in my constituency? Does the Secretary of State agree that the best prospect for the peace process now is the continuation of the inter-party three-stranded talks, based on the carefully negotiated agreement of 26 March 1991, which is still extant? Does he agree that, based on the principles enunciated in the Downing street agreement of 15 December 1993, the hope for peace, for which we all pray, would be best served by that?

The best hope for peace is if the Provisional IRA and anybody else who uses violence for political means recognise that it will get them nowhere. They will end up in prison; in the past four weeks, 40 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences. That is the best hope for peace. I absolutely agree that it is necessary to proceed with the political talks with which I have already dealt this afternoon in answer to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).

Will my right hon. and learned Friend, when he next meets the Irish Government, raise the issue of cross-border security? I acknowledge that relations are good between the RUC and the Garda, but it would be helpful if the Irish Government showed more commitment in terms of providing resources and manpower, sharing intelligence and permitting Army helicopters to go in hot pursuit of terrorists when they flee to the south. After all, terrorists are no respecters of any sovereign nation.

Cross-border co-operation is always on the agenda at meetings of the intergovernmental conference. Progress has certainly been made. Improved communications, technical co-operation, liaison structures and joint threat assessments are all items of improved co-operation. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend and the House to the statement issued yesterday by the Chief Constable of the RUC in which he said that co-operation was at an all-time high. He said:

"The success rate of the Garda in finding arms and explosives, and making arrests, has been first rate and is plain for all to see."

Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity of underlining what the Irish Prime Minister said—that the struggle is not now against the British Government but against the Irish people? Will he consider the possibility of appointing someone like Ninian Stephen or perhaps the President as an interlocutor or mediator to take the peace process forward?

The hon. Gentleman accurately quotes what Mr. Reynolds said in America yesterday. I add to that another quotation. He said:

"If they"—

"are trying to get new or additional terms for people who use violence to try and achieve a political end, then they will not succeed."

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the outrage felt by my constituents in Erewash and throughout Derbyshire at the failure of the Irish courts to extradite the two people wanted for questioning by the Derbyshire police force about the murder of a soldier in Derby two years ago. In his talks with the Irish Government, will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to do everything he can to ensure that they change their law in such a way that the Irish courts would extradite in circumstances in the future? Murder is murder; it is not a political crime.

I warmly agree, as of course does the whole House, with my hon. Friend's last sentence. She never fails—and very properly—to remind me of the concern of her constituents in that recent case. It is to be understood that the Irish Government are now taking through their parliamentary process—it has been through the Dail—a Bill that would have removed two of the three grounds on which the High Court judge relied in refusing the extradition request in the two most recent cases. I must recognise that the Irish High Court judges are as independent of their Government as ours are of the British Government. We referred to the first case at the previous intergovernmental conference and mentioned the disappointment that was widely felt at the outcome.

The Secretary of State will, of course, remember that, in that particular case, the judges in the Republic made a comment on a third ground about the prejudging of cases by the British press and how dangerous that was. We have had examples of that both in the Republic and in this country.

There is no question of dodging anything at all. I will not make any comment on the case; I never make comments on judicial observations either in our own jurisdiction or in anybody else's. It is perfectly legitimate to express disappointment at the outcome. That is as far as I go.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who advises him on the safety of the harbours and the ferry service linking the inhabited island with County Antrim.

Advice on these matters is provided by the marine directorate of the Department of Transport, which, from 1 April, will be known as the Marine Safety Agency, and by the Health and Safety Executive.

Northern Ireland has one inhabited offshore island—Rathlin. If Rathlin were in the south of Ireland or in Scotland, the harbour facilities would be improved. Will my hon. Friend engage all the efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who has more right to call himself Irish than St. Patrick, to ensure that, whether from European funds or from Northern Ireland funds, the harbours at Castle Bay and Ballycastle are improved? That cannot be done by Moyle council itself. There must be some other form of funding.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in Rathlin island and am sorry that it was not possible to include improvements to the harbour facilities in this year's public spending round, but I will do as he suggests for the future.

Does the Minister agree that the ferry services operating from Belfast and Larne, County Antrim, and my constituency operate within the highest possible safety standards? Does he further agree that the safety of ships' passengers and crews would be enhanced by the provision of a lifeboat at Larne and by the improvement of roads to the ports of Northern Ireland and to the ports on the western coast of the most inhabited island—Great Britain?

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the port of Lame and will look carefully at what he said about the provision of a lifeboat. I am looking with great care at road links.

I, too, should like to greet the House on St. Patrick's day and also to say that the Secretary of State could do a good service to Northern Ireland for once by declaring St. Patrick's day a public holiday. That would please the nationalists, because they think that St. Patrick was a Roman Catholic, and the Protestants, because they know that he was a Protestant and a Brit.

I am afraid that I am not in a position to render St. Patrick's day a public holiday, much as I should like to do so. I will refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the. Secretary of State.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the Government's plans for privatisation in Northern Ireland.

The Government will privatise Belfast international airport by way of a trade sale during 1994. The Ports (Northern Ireland) Order will permit any trust port to bring forward a scheme for privatisation. The previously announced intention to privatise water and sewerage services will not take place within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Why do the Government ignore the views of the Belfast harbour commissioners, the work force at the port and the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland, as reflected by the elected representatives? Those people consider the privatisation programme completely irrelevant to the real needs of people in Northern Ireland and the rest of the country.

I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the initiatives as "crackpot"—far from it. The proposals are designed to improve the quality and standard of services. I understand that the House considered the question of Aldergrove airport and its police service a short time ago and that the House was assured that the police service would continue to function as heretofore.

During discussions in the ministerial team about the continuation of the plans for privatisation in the Province, did the Minister and his colleagues consider the possibility of privatising the Northern Ireland Office? Surely, if privatisation is regarded as a policy in the interests of the community, the privatisation of the Northern Ireland Office would be very popular. It would clean out the nest of those who flirt with our political enemies and negotiate privately with people who are our murdering foes.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the originality of his proposal. I am confident, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues are satisfied with the high quality and standard of service given by the civil servants who serve the Northern Ireland Office.

The Minister of State may not recall—if he does not, the Under-Secretary of State certainly will—that, during the debate on the privatisation of Belfast international airport, I pointed out that Commissioner Bruce Milian had informed me that the European Commission might seek a clawback of the proportion of money that the Commission had put into the refurbishment of the airport following its privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has received a similar letter from Commissioner Millan, saying that the Commission may seek to claw back—

Order. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman ask a question yet.

Is the Minister aware that we have had a further letter from Bruce Milian, saying that a similar clawback principle would apply if the Government privatised any of the trust ports in Northern Ireland?

I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealt with the matter in the debate in the House a short time ago. If there is any further information that the Government should take into account, they will certainly do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the Downing street declaration.

The declaration by the two Heads of Government is a statement of the fundamental principles of democracy, consent and the rejection of violence. It is, accordingly, not time limited, and will stand.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the clearest signals that the Irish Government could send the men of violence would be a statement that they intend to scrap articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which lay claim to Northern Ireland, if the men of violence—the IRA and Sinn Fein—do not renounce violence, as foreseen in the Downing street declaration? In any event, is not such a claim an anachronism in this day and age?

The answer to the second question is, honestly, yes, it is an anachronism. I believe that to be essentially understood. One of the most interesting features of the joint declaration is a clear statement by the Taoiseach in one of its paragraphs of his understanding of the resentment that the two articles cause to Unionists. On the other hand, he says that they represent an aspiration of many nationalists. A clear steer is given by the Taoiseach in that declaration—that if an overall package is agreed, then as part of a balanced constitutional settlement, amendments to the constitution will be put to the Irish people and will be supported by the Irish Government. I do not believe that there is anything between the two Governments on this issue, and my hon. Friend is right to raise the matter in that context.

May I also bring greetings from the Hill of St. Patrick in Armagh, where St. Patrick wisely chose to live and work? That he decided to die and be buried in Downpatrick was a matter of fine judgment on his part.

I agree very much with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement—[Interruption.] Perhaps I mean the second part, after the obeisance to St. Patrick, which was entirely appropriate.

As it was the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic who said that there would be a crackdown against the IRA if it rejected the terms and the spirit of the joint declaration, will my right hon. and learned Friend "seek clarification", as the expression goes, from the Prime Minister as to what he meant by that crackdown and inquire when there will be clear evidence of that response?

Those matters are always under discussion at the meetings that take place on a regular basis. It is important to recognise that no security measure has been held in abeyance. My hon. Friend would be rather critical had any practical measure been held in abeyance pending the response of the IRA to the joint declaration. The full range of security measures has been, and will continue to be, brought to bear on all terrorists. Those measures are reviewed the whole time, not least in conjunction with the Irish Government. I am glad to read what the Chief Constable of the RUC said yesterday about the high level of co-operation between his forces and the Garda.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the declaration addressed two questions—first, the circumstances in which a united Ireland could be achieved, which is a purely hypothetical question as there is clearly no consent for such an outcome, and, secondly, how the IRA could enter democratic politics if it so wished, although it is perfectly clear that it does not so wish? Given the response to those hypothetical questions, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman further agree that the declaration is an irrelevance and cannot be used as the basis for future institutions and should not be used by him as an excuse for not implementing arrangements for stability in Northern Ireland that he knows have the most widespread acceptance?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have never used the joint declaration as an excuse for anything. As I have said more than once this afternoon, the declaration is a declaration of fundamental principle; it does not cease to be one on 15 March, having been one on 15 December. Nor does it preclude the taking of any security or political measures that are deemed prudent and sensible for the achievement of a less antagonistic and more tranquil and prosperous way of life in Northern Ireland—the purpose which all the constitutional parties joined up to serve and to seek. The hon. Gentleman played a notable part in that process a year ago.

The Secretary of State will be aware that he has the full support of the Labour party for his interpretation of the declaration. We regard it as a set of principles that will outlast any possible lapse in talks. That must be the way forward. Does he accept that Labour believes that, if the parties cannot reach agreement, implicit in the declaration is a responsibility on both Governments to attempt to develop their own institutional framework for peace and to put it to the parties?

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments in the first part of his question, but he will not entice me into a clarification of what has always been extremely clear in the text of the joint declaration. I shall not follow him into any discussion of what is implicit. I am perfectly prepared to recite what is explicit and what it does not contain. That is all that I want to say about that.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that prospects for inward investment will be particularly enhanced by the success of the initiative launched at the time of the declaration? Does he have any progress to report on inward investment in Northern Ireland?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most hypocritical and disgusting features of the Provisional IRA is that it claims to speak for the people of Ireland, but does nothing but diminish their prospects for employment and prosperity. Fortunately, such are the attractions of Ireland—north and south, but I am talking about Northern Ireland—for inward investment from overseas that, in the past year, the Industrial Development Board has been able to secure £200 million worth of inward investment and about 2,000 jobs. Prospects for this year are no less bright.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has recently held meetings with the leaders of the three Northern Ireland parties who have been engaged in private bilateral discussions and I have subsequently begun a series of further bilateral meetings with representatives from those parties to discuss our ideas for giving sharper focus and direction to the talks process.

Will the Minister continue to do everything possible to drive forward the peace process, in spite of the antics of fanatics on both the loyalist and republican sides? 'Will he take this opportunity to say a little about the Secretary of State's ideas for the establishment of cross-border executive boards, with delegated powers from the Irish and British Governments? What functions does he intend such boards to cover?

We have made it clear all along—I agree with the hon. Gentleman—that no one can be allowed to exercise a veto over the talks process by the exercise of violence. I repeat that assurance. It is for that reason that the talks process is proceeding. As to the second part of his question, the hon. Gentleman is talking about matters that are essentially part of the discussions that are required to take place over the three strands. It will be of no constructive use for us to try to define the parts of any strand in public in this House before negotiations have taken place with the participants in the talks. That is something to be considered in due course as part of the talks process.

Does my hon. Friend realise that some of us are often baffled by the language that is used when describing matters political in Northern Ireland? How can there be consensus if one is saying that there can be no veto? I do not see how the two can be bedfellows. Does it mean that we will never reach any agreements at any time?

No. The phrase that has been used many times in relation to finding a settlement in Northern Ireland—indeed, across the three relationships within the islands of the British Isles—has been that any solution has to be broadly or widely acceptable to the peoples involved. Therefore, any settlements in relation to institutions in Northern Ireland would have to have the broad agreement of the people of Northern Ireland.

Does the Minister agree that the constitutional leaders hold the key to peaceful political progress in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that the consensus of opinion is that all efforts should be directed, with those leaders, towards a devolutionary process rather than towards pursuing the three-stranded approach with the Irish Government?

I appreciate the importance of the leaders of the three constitutional parties who are presently taking part in bilateral talks with me. I certainly intend to continue those bilaterals. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already said, it is matter of practical reality that we cannot look at one strand within the three-stranded concept in isolation from the other strands. A solution in one strand cannot be achieved without solutions within the other strands. For that reason, we have made it clear that the talks that are taking place at the moment involve all the participants across all three strands.

I thank my hon. Friend for the hard work that he has done already in trying to keep the political dialogue going. Does he agree—particularly on this of all days—that the remarkable phenomenon of bringing fully into account the Irish dimension is that the two Governments stand shoulder to shoulder on the declaration and that there is no movement away from that? That is the disconcerting reality for the extremists, and we expect the moderates on the Ulster Unionist side also to acknowledge that reality.

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend that it is immensely important that the two Governments continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on the basis of the joint declaration. At the same time, I think that it is important that the Irish Government have restated their commitment to the talks involving the constitutional parties. I believe that we are not yet ready to get around a table. There is groundwork to be done and that groundwork will be undertaken, I hope, by the constitutional parties and the two Governments.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further plans he has to bring about peace in the north of Ireland.

I propose to continue to enlist and engage to the full every means whereby it is appropriate for a democratic society to defend itself against those who assault its principles and its people.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the Government's view that, apart from the unification of Ireland by coercion or the expulsion of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, no constitutional political party has any veto on political progress, including the establishment of institutions agreed by the two Governments?

Of course it is a matter of constitutional reality that no one has a veto. It is something that has passed into the current language at the instance of people who object to the fact that the numerical majority of people living in Northern Ireland do not wish to end the Union. That is what is objected to and it is then described as a veto at the suit of some political parties. It is quite untrue.

I bring greetings from North Down, where St. Patrick landed 15 centuries ago. He was a distinguished Briton who returned to northern Ireland. Is not it appropriate that, on St. Patrick's day, we should remember St. Patrick's utter and unqualified condemnation of the murderers in Ireland in his day? He described those people as wishing to "gorge themselves on blood". He condemned to eternal damnation not only them but those who acquiesced in such slaughter. Does not the Secretary of State agree that St. Patrick's words are as applicable today as they were 15 centuries ago?

Of course that is right. I cannot claim to represent the place where St. Patrick landed or the various places where he is buried. I can claim only to be named after him and I am very glad about that, among the other things to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this is indeed an historic occasion? It is the first time that a Secretary of State called Patrick has answered Northern Ireland questions on St. Patrick's day. Bearing in mind that St. Patrick is the patron saint of the entire island of Ireland, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to live up to his name by ensuring that any constitutional settlement contains a meaningful all-Ireland dimension that will help to reconcile and unite all the people of Ireland? Will he remind his good friend the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that if Ireland were united, St. Patrick's day would almost certainly be observed as a public holiday throughout the 32 counties, instead of in just 26 of them?

St. Patrick's day is a public holiday for the Northern Ireland civil service, and probably rather more generally. If there is to be an all-Ireland connotation in anything that is agreed, at any time, it will be only because, for a start, that is the wish of a numerical majority of the people living in Northern Ireland. That is recognised by the Irish Government in the joint declaration. Everything must be based on consent. However, anything that serves, by way of tradition or example, to concentrate upon those things that unite, rather than those that divide, people in the island of Ireland is to be welcomed. I regard as felicitous my good fortune to be answering Northern Ireland questions on St. Patrick's day. It seems to have got me along all right so far.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the remarks of Speaker Tom Foley of the United States House of Representatives? Does the Secretary of State agree that, in retrospect, Gerry Adams's visit to the United States, far from being a spectacular propaganda victory for the IRA, drew attention to the isolation that that organisation's espousal of violence is causing not only in the Republic of Ireland and in the United Kingdom but in the world at large?

I entirely agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I, too, express my greetings to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on her arrival in the Chamber on this felicitous day. From the other side of the Atlantic there has come a chorus of condemnation of the Provisionals for the continuance of their wicked and inexcusable violence. That is down to the two Governments' standing side by side with the constitutional parties in rejecting violence for political ends. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the disbursement of European Community structural funds; and if he will make a statement.

As part of the continuing process of consultation with local organisations, Ministers and officials have received numerous representations on the use of structural funds money in Northern Ireland.

Given the immensely important role played by the voluntary sector in bringing and keeping people together, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the voluntary and community groups are brought into the deliberations concerning the European programmes and that they have adequate representation on the monitoring programmes that will determine how such funds are spent in Northern Ireland?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I are grateful to the voluntary groups for their contribution to the life of Northern Ireland. When the Commission has made known its agreement to our proposals we shall consider establishing a monitoring committee. I am sure that it will be possible to bring into that committee appropriate representation from the voluntary sector to assist in the disbursement of the funds that will be available to us over the next six years.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 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.

In the light of today's newspaper reports, does the Attorney-General still have the full confidence of the Prime Minister?

The Attorney-General has my full and complete confidence. He has made it perfectly clear today, in the light of the reports in this morning's newspapers, that he has no knowledge of any approach by MI6 to him or to his office asking that the Matrix Churchill prosecution should be stopped. He has received no notification from the Scott inquiry that any such evidence has been given to it, and the inquiry has made it clear that it cannot recall that any such evidence has been given.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to plan a visit to Birmingham and Manchester city councils, where he will find debt at the same level as the national debts of Paraguay and El Salvador? Is it not a disgrace that those Labour-controlled councils, encouraged by Opposition Members, have betrayed not only their electorates but future generations? Is not it time that they were flung out of office?

Those councils certainly have a very poor record, as my hon. Friend says, and although the people of Birmingham and Manchester have a great deal of which they can be proud, in Birmingham, certainly, the people cannot be proud of the record of their Labour council. Of every £10 that Birmingham receives in council tax it now has to spend £7 on servicing its debt, but when one considers many other Labour authorities one realises that it is by no means alone in that appalling record.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that he need look no further than Westminster, which has a debt higher than that of Mongolia? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the average council tax to be charged in Labour local authority areas this year will be £40 lower than the average council tax to be charged in Tory areas?

On the right hon. Lady's first point about debt, she might bear in mind the fact that Islington owes more than Togo, Camden more than Chad, Bradford more than Botswana and Leeds more than Lesotho. As for council tax, the right hon. Lady knows very well that she is not comparing band for band or like with like. When she compares band for band she will see that Conservative councils are many tens of pounds—in some cases more than £100—cheaper.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that the measure that we have consistently used not only gives the best overall picture but is the measure with which the Government started out? It is the measure that was used by both the Department of the Environment and Conservative central office in their documents. Is not the truth that the Government changed the measure only when they realised that it showed that people pay less in Labour local council areas? Is not that the reason why?

I must say that the right hon. Lady is being extremely silly and is talking rubbish. What the figures show across the country is that Conservative-controlled local authorities set far lower council taxes than do Labour. So far this year the figures—

indicated dissent.

It is no good the right hon. Lady shaking her head: it is quite true. The figures show that where Labour controls both tiers of English local government the average council tax is £560 for a band C property, over £130 more than the Conservative average of £429. However the right hon. Lady wriggles, she will find that pattern across the country.

It is the Prime Minister who is wriggling. He started off with average measures of council tax, he went on to quote band D and now he is quoting band C. Is not this just further evidence that we are fast reaching the stage where the Government are incapable of telling the truth about taxation? In local government or national government, with the Conservatives one pays more and one gets less.

If the right hon. Lady wants to see some high taxes in local government she should look in the mirror, for it is her party which is providing them. Of the 10 highest council taxes announced, seven are from Labour local authorities and none has been set by a Conservative authority. Of the 10 lowest council taxes announced, none comes from a Labour authority. Five of the 10 districts announcing the lowest bills are under Conservative control. Whatever the hon. Lady has to say, she cannot hide the fact that one gets a better deal under Conservative councils, that the services are better and that the council tax is lower. Though she wriggles from here to next Tuesday, she cannot hide that fact.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust stance to date on qualified majority voting. Does he agree that it will be in the best interests of both the country and the party if that robust stance is maintained?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the middle of negotiations that are important for the future of the European Community and for us, and I have no intention of being moved by synthetic efforts at pressure from any source. We shall defend the country's best interests in those negotiations and I am entirely confident that that can be done in an acceptable way without any question of delaying enlargement.

Why does the Prime Minister not realise that investing the £900 million necessary to provide fully funded, high-quality nursery education, available to every three and four-year-old in the country, is the best investment that the country can make? Instead of raising taxes to prepare for tax bribes at the next election, why will he not invest to prepare our children for the next century?

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would raise taxes and he has made that clear.I hope that everyone understands that. We have made it perfectly clear that, as and when resources are available, we shall move towards further nursery education, towards universal nursery education. The reports that may have excited the right hon. Gentleman's interest earlier this week in one national newspaper were wrong.

As my right hon. Friend is aware, the report of the forestry review group is now in the hands of Ministers. As my right hon. Friend recognises, the Forestry Commission is included in the review. Not only by my constituents in the forest of Dean but throughout the nation, the Forestry Commission is held in high esteem. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, before any decisions are made in the light of the report, interested parties will have the opportunity to comment?

Of course we are examining the report carefully and will seek a good deal of consultation. We have the report, we are examining it and it will be some while before we reach a decision.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

Has the Prime Minister seen the report today which shows that the response times of the London ambulance service have worsened since the Secretary of State intervened to sort out the chaos? In view of the inability of the London ambulance service to come anywhere near patients charter standards, does it make sense to close up to 10 of London's accident and emergency units—or is it nothing to do with him?

The hon. Gentleman knows that, in terms of London health, we are seeking first to make sure that we have the resources for the improvement of primary health care, which needs substantial improvement in London. In order to do that, it is necessary to rationalise a proper hospital system. We have taken action—

Answer.

If the hon. Gentleman will stop shouting and wait for the answer, I shall give it to him. As for the ambulance service, the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will know of the measures that have been taken to ensure that a proper service is readily available.

Has my right hon. Friend seen today's car production figures? Will he join in welcoming them? Does he agree that the Labour party, many of the members of which have car plants in their constituencies, has consistently talked down our motor industry, and Britain generally?

It is certainly the case that the motor car industry was in a very desperate state a few years ago. That has changed dramatically. The production figures this morning show that car production is up 6 per cent. on a year ago. The British car industry is now a success story to an extent that was inconceivable in the strike-ridden days so beloved in the memory of Opposition Members.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

Is the Prime Minister concerned about the sale by Scottish Homes—a Government quango—of 1,200 houses, some for as little as £1 each, to a housing association chaired by a former Scottish Office Minister, an hon. Member who is now a Northern Ireland Minister? Does he agree that it is no surprise that many people believe that the Government are drowning in a sea of sleaze and secrecy entirely of their own making?

If the hon. Gentleman has any firm charges to make, perhaps he should make them other than by innuendo and under privilege of the House. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was an unpaid, voluntary, non-executive chairman of the Waverley housing trust. He had no financial interest whatever in the trust. His involvement was solely to pursue an interest in providing new forms of social housing management involving participation by tenant representatives. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on his question and he should then offer a public apology to my hon. Friend.

In the wake of the recent tragic murder investigations in Gloucester, is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome news this week that four missing people have been reunited with their families? Will he welcome with me and salute the superb work of the Missing Persons Bureau and the national helpline?

I had heard that welcome news. Out of the dreadful saga of recent weeks, it is at least one positive outcome that everyone can welcome. I certainly think that it shows how important is the work of organisations such as the Missing Persons Bureau. I willingly pay tribute to it and to the National Missing Persons Helpline, as requested by my hon. Friend.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

As a Home Office Minister said on Friday that the Government would not support the Racial Hatred and Violence Bill that has been prepared by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), and setting that against the background of the eight racial murders that have been committed in the past few years, how can the Prime Minister justify to the relatives of those who have been murdered in that way the fact that the Government can find time in their legislative programme to outlaw hunt saboteurs, but cannot find the time to tackle the escalating tide of racial violence to which my party drew attention this morning?

Every sensible person will share a concern about crimes motivated by racial hatred. That is certainly the position of the Government. As for the Bill, we believe that the scope of the existing law is adequate, although we shall continue to consider how that law is working in practice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is already a specific offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years to stir up racial hatred. In addition, the full range of criminal law is available to deal with other crimes motivated by racial hatred. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, for example, deals with low-level harassment. A range of measures is available. Of course we will keep them under review because there should be no place in this country for racial hatred of any sort from any group directed alt any other group.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on standing firm in his negotiations on the blocking minority. Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that if the Foreign Secretary chooses to stand firm next week, he will have the wholesale support of Conservative Members and of the country?

My right hon. Friend will certainly take the position in the negotiations next week—at the moment, those negotiations are at an extremely serious stage—that he believes to be in the interests of this country, both in the short and in the long term. There are important interests, both short term and long term, to be safeguarded, and it is on that basis that my right hon. Friend will negotiate.