To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what considerations led to the decision to publish the agendas of meetings of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference but not the result of exchanges.

The intergovernmental conference follows normal practice in these matters. The substance of discussions between Governments is confidential, no agenda being published, but after meetings a joint statement is issued.

Surely the Secretary of State would agree that the communiqué which is issued amounts to an agenda to be discussed at the meetings? The people of Northern Ireland are concerned whenever they see, over a period, the vast range of subjects that are discussed, which, in the eyes of many folk, amount to a joint authority. A full minute would allay the fears and concerns of the people of Northern Ireland, so why should it not be published?

I think that the existing practice is the right one. There is a joint statement as to the character of matters that have been discussed and I think that that is the right way to go about it. I believe that the practice is sustained by experience as being wise.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the warm tributes paid by the Dublin Government in memory of the men who died in the tragic helicopter disaster in Scotland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Certainly, I accept her invitation to express my warm appreciation of the message that was received from Mr. Spring and, I think, from leaders of all the political parties represented in the House. It was a tragic accident, but its operational effects are being remedied by all four services involved and the work of those fine people is continuing, as they would wish.

The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the functions of the intergovernmental conference is to protect the human rights and civil rights of everyone on the island of Ireland. Is he aware of the thuggish behaviour of many firms in the north of Ireland, including the recently taken over Ulster Farmers Bacon Factory and the recently privatised Northern Ireland Electricity Retail Co. which are offering their employees employment only on the condition that they accept a drop in salary of about £5,000, with no severance pay and redundancy provisions? Can he ensure that, in future meetings of the intergovernmental conference, that element of human rights and civil rights is protected by both Governments?

That is an ingenious vehicle by which to bring that concern to Question Time. I do not think that it is a matter of human rights; it is a matter—although I am not aware of the individual circumstances—of businesses striving to keep people in employment, but having to have regard to market circumstances in deciding whether they can pay people to remain in employment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his plans to meet representatives of BBC Northern Ireland, Ulster Television, Downtown Radio and other commercial radio stations to discuss broadcasting in Northern Ireland.

I have no plans at present for such a meeting.

I am rather disappointed about that. Is my right hon. Friend aware how difficult it is for journalists to maintain impartiality, often in difficult and tragic situations? Does he agree that the current position in Northern Ireland is both difficult and tragic? May I ask him to see representatives of the BBC and others, such as Downtown Radio and Ulster Television, and to congratulate them on the impartial and unbiased coverage that they have given in Northern Ireland?

I know that my hon. Friend takes an informed interest in the work of the BBC. Of course, all journalistic reporting from whatever source—when it is fair, accurate and objective—contributes greatly to the community and to the security situation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends meet members of the journalistic community in Northern Ireland almost on a daily basis, when often we find a microphone underneath our faces from people seeking comment. We have a very good and warm relationship with them.

Will the Minister reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)? There is a need for consultation, especially as it is thought that cable television will soon be introduced in Northern Ireland. It is important for the Minister to impress on any organisation that wishes to introduce cable television that it should consult local authorities and local people fully. Will he think about approaching the BBC about being more generous and being equal with concessionary television licences throughout Northern Ireland?

Some of the hon. Gentleman's points properly fall within the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. In so far as my colleagues in Northern Ireland or I have any responsibility, we are always available to meet representatives of the media industry to discuss any of their concerns that fall within our jurisdiction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards securing a resumption of the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland and on discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning a constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the current political situation in Northern Ireland; and what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the political parties in Northern Ireland concerning a constitutional settlement.

Bilateral discussions are continuing with three of the main Northern Ireland parties. The Government are also consulting closely with the Irish Government on the preparation of a framework document, which would facilitate a comprehensive political settlement. Our aim remains to return to multilateral talks at the earliest appropriate time.

Does the Minister accept that there can be no purely internal settlement of the Northern Ireland question and, therefore, that there is a need for a formal, institutionalised Irish convention?

The Government's position has been clear for some time. Any settlement must address the three relationships—relationships within Northern Ireland, those between the north and the south of Ireland and those between the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Government here. The formula of 26 March 1991, under which talks are currently conducted, made that clear and that remains the Government's clear position.

Can the Minister give us any idea when the joint framework document will be presented to the Northern Ireland parties? When does he think that the document will be published?

As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, work is going on between the two Governments on the framework document, which is intended to set out a shared understanding of the elements of a settlement within strands 2 and 3 that have the best prospects of achieving widespread acceptance and support. It is also likely to include constitutional issues. At this stage, it is not possible for me to say when that process will be completed. Some time after it is completed, we shall wish to discuss the understandings with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

I should like to press the Minister a little further on the same subject. I wonder whether he has seen The Irish Times this morning, which contains a quotation from Mr. Dermot Ahern, co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body. He says that the Taoiseach hopes to finalise the document before he meets the Prime Minister in mid-July. Presuming that Mr. Reynolds finalises the document and it is rubber-stamped by the Government, is it to be issued to the public, so that the people of Northern Ireland may see it, or is it to be given to the constitutional parties or all the political parties in Northern Ireland? Who exactly will receive it?

First, I should like totally to knock on the head the idea that the British Government are going to rubber-stamp anything. The process that is taking place between the Irish and British Governments is to see where we can find a shared understanding on the elements of a settlement that is likely to receive widespread acceptance by the people of Northern Ireland. That process is carried out intensively at this moment and it is not possible to set a time scale for it, but in due course we hope that it will form part of the process of dialogue that will, in the end, lead to a settlement in Northern Ireland.

When my hon. Friend discusses constitutional change with the parties in Northern Ireland, will he bear in mind the interests of the Unionist party —particularly in Scotland—on constitutional change? As a former Scottish Office Minister, my hon. Friend will realise what I mean when I say that the interesting election results in Scotland have recently given us cause to have concern about the Union.

I always watch with nostalgia political developments north of the border, but my responsibilities at this time are for political developments within Northern Ireland. There are great dangers in trying to draw analogies between the situation in Northern Ireland and that which exists in Scotland.

Having confirmed that talks with some political parties have been on-going since last September, can the Minister confirm that it is still the Government's position that the constitutional settlement is within the constitution of the United Kingdom, despite the comments of Mr. Reynolds, who may now be having some midsummer madness after his recent Christmas mislongings?

I can make clear to the hon. Gentleman what has been clear all along: there can be no change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. I can go further and say that there can be no settlement under the present dialogue which does not achieve the widespread acceptance of the people of Northern Ireland. There is no question of coercion or imposition, and that is recognised as much by the Government in Dublin as it is by us.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government of the Republic do not exercise any kind of veto over the progress of the inter-party talks?

We have made it clear that no one exercises a veto and the important talks will proceed on the basis that no single participant can prevent the talks progressing by simply refusing to come to the table. It is absolutely clear that if we are to achieve agreement, it must be on the basis of widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has received from Sinn Fein-IRA following their request for clarification of the Downing Street declaration.

None. The people of Northern Ireland demand that they desist, permanently, from violence within our democracy; yet, to the revulsion of the people, they continue to murder people and to condone and justify such murder.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the biggest single factor now impeding the peace process in Northern Ireland is the massive amount of money which is made by racketeers and godfathers working within paramilitary organisations? If Gerry Adams and the political leaders of Sinn Fein wanted to deliver a peace deal, there would remain a major task in rooting out those who have a clear and vested interest in continuing the violence in Northern Ireland. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we must renew and redouble our energies and efforts in stopping those mafia-style activities?

I agree that there is a great deal of racketeering to be found on both sides of the paramilitary spectrum. I do not agree that it is the biggest obstacle to the establishment of peace. The biggest obstacle is the refusal of those who resort to violence for political purposes to give it up in this democracy. We take the greatest pains to counter paramilitary racketeering, but I do not agree that our efforts need to be redoubled. We are at the moment doing all that we consider practicable, and we keep that very much under review.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, after the clarification which has taken place, there will be no further dealings at all with Sinn Fein and the IRA? Surely they now have a chance and an opportunity, and surely now the process must go on without them.

The process will certainly go on, with or without them. It will only go on with them if they make it plain that they have renounced violence permanently and that they are committed to democratic politics. There is no question of any dealings with Sinn Fein until that has been delivered—none at all. There has been widespread approval all around the world for the comments that the British Government made on the questions which were submitted by Sinn Fein a mere four and a half months from the signing of the declaration. It is now for it to answer a question—when will it give up violence?

I express my appreciation to the Secretary of State for the written clarification which he gave in keeping with his wish to leave no stone unturned and to bring a total end to violence in our streets. May I repeat my view that the recent democratic expression of the people was a strong expression of support for the peace process, which is about a total cessation of violence followed by an agreement among our divided people which threatens no section of our people? May I repeat my request and hope that the response of Sinn Fein and the IRA will respect the self-determination of the people of Ireland, north and south, on the methods used?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at both the beginning and the end of his question. The interpretation of election results in Northern Ireland is a specialist activity. It seems reasonable to remark that, in the recent election—to the extent that electors might have had the joint declaration in mind when electing people to the European Parliament—a margin of 20 per cent. more people voted for candidates supportive of, or acquiescent in, the joint declaration than for candidates opposed to it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcomed the replies that he gave to Sinn Fein's questions? We particularly welcomed his recognition of its electoral mandate and the fact that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 should be on the table, that no party should have a veto over discussions and that the only condition for going to the conference table is a demonstrable total denunciation of violence. In view of the strong mandate given in the European election to those parties seeking peace in Northern Ireland, particularly that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), does the Secretary of State accept that there is every reason for Sinn Fein to heed the voice of the people of Northern Ireland and the whole island of Ireland, renounce violence and take its place at the negotiating table?

I very much agree that Sinn Fein should heed the voice of the people. In the south it got 3 per cent. of the vote, while in the north it got under 10 per cent. There is no excuse in this democracy for proceeding to use violence for any political purpose whatever. That message is well understood by the people of Northern Ireland, who demand that violence must end. For Sinn Fein to continue to use violence, claiming to act in some way in the name of the people of Ireland, is not only fanciful but fraudulent.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the current security situation in the Province.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of terrorist activity since 15 December 1993.

Thirty-four people have been murdered this year as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland, including five members of the security forces. In the period between 15 December and the end of last year, one soldier was murdered. Many attacks have been foiled by the courage and expertise of the security forces. There will be no relaxation in the determination of the authorities to bring those responsible for terrorist crime to justice.

Now that national and international opinion is at long last aligned with democracy and not with Irish terrorism, will the Minister reflect on the views of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who, when Home Secretary, said:

"There is no point in negotiating with the IRA. They just have to be extirpated"?

There is no negotiation with the Provisional IRA. The joint declaration sets out a mechanism for those who wish to follow the path of peace. I hope that they will follow it.

The western part of Suffolk may be a long way from Northern Ireland, but may I relay to my right hon. Friend the expressions of shock and sympathy addressed to me by many of my constituents following the tragic helicopter crash? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, despite that tragic setback, the fight against terrorism, from whatever quarter, will continue unabated?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who seeks to take an informed interest in the security problems of Northern Ireland. The tragedy of losing 29 experienced and valuable people who have contributed so much to saving life is a great disaster and the House will think particularly of their families at this time. I assure the House that, notwithstanding the extent of that disaster, every effort to continue the fight against terrorism will continue. Even now, the replacements are going into office to take up and continue the work of those whose lives have been so tragically lost.

In Belfast last week, the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church was held. That is the largest Protestant Church in Northern Ireland. Views were expressed by many laymen and clergy about the security situation on the ground. As the Minister will have taken them into account, how does he now respond to them?

I am naturally concerned about all comment in Northern Ireland, but the House should know of the real and considerable successes that the security forces are having. So far this year, until 15 June, 220 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences, as against 172 in the same period last year, including 49 with murder or attempted murder, as against 38 in the same period last year. What matters is that people who commit those awful and evil crimes are caught, arrested and charged before the courts.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to Irish terrorism in his question. Is not this an appropriate time to remind ourselves that, for the past two years, Unionist terrorism has been claiming more lives than republican terrorism, and not for the first time in Northern Ireland's sad history? Is not it therefore all the more important that we now say to both the Unionist and the republican community in the north, which is where the violence originates, that there is no excuse for terrorism? There never has been any excuse, but there is no excuse in view of the bold and, if I may say so, visionary decision of the two Governments to go for the Downing Street declaration. It has given both sides democratic safeguards and democratic opportunities, if they follow that agenda, and the British and Irish people expect no less from both communities.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and agree whole-heartedly with his view. Terrorism from whatever source is unacceptable. There is no excuse of any kind. So far this year, 136 so-called loyalists and 83 republicans have been charged for terrorist-related offences.

Is the Minister aware that there is growing alarm at the increase in criminality and hooliganism in the North Down area? The people of North Down are entitled to the same security as any other part of Northern Ireland. With regard to hooliganism, there are gangs of youths who travel around and harass, and in some cases terrorise, vulnerable old-age pensioners. Surely it is time to increase the number of police in the North Down area, the number of police vehicles and the number of police stations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that I take a special interest in the progress of the fight against ordinary crime in Northern Ireland and especially in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting a short while ago, when I was able to speak to the police about their level of clear-up of ordinary crime, which is especially high—often, 40 to 50 per cent.

Does the Minister understand that the people of Northern Ireland are deeply worried about the deteriorating security situation in the Province, bearing in mind the figures he gave to the House? Also, in a recent debate in the House, widespread anxiety was expressed by many hon. Members across the House that IRA Sinn Fein leader Martin McGuinness seemed to be above the law. In the light of the deteriorating security situation, is not it about time that Martin McGuinness was arrested forthwith and that the due process of law took place—or is he above the law because of negotiations with the Government?

No one is above the law passed by the House of Commons. All those people who should be properly investigated for alleged crimes will be so investigated. There is no question of anyone being exempted from the criminal justice process as the hon. Gentleman implies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what security matters were discussed when he last met Ministers of the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement.

Such discussions at our meetings take place in confidence, but security co-operation remains a matter of high importance for both Governments.

Has the abject failure of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in the recent elections —in spite of his vitriolic attacks on the Anglo-Irish declaration he gained less than one third of the votes—strengthened democratically the British Government's position vis-a-vis the Irish Government?

I do not think that the British Government's position can be viewed as one of antagonism towards the Irish Government, although a firm stance is being taken in the current important discussions. Our position is clear: it is based on the principle of democracy. The future of Northern Ireland must be determined only by democratic means. That also happens to be the position of the Irish Government, as is made clear in the joint declaration.

In discussing security matters with his counterpart in the Irish Republic, has my right hon. and learned Friend had any cause for optimism about the role that the United States Administration could play in assisting the search for peace and security in Northern Ireland?

I should like to say that there is a close relationship between the security forces of the Crown and their counterparts in the United States. Indeed, I have nothing but gratitude for the across-the-board co-operation that we receive from the American authorities.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the Irish Government to discuss security arrangements under the confidence-building measures of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will he discuss the proposals for the reform of the Police Authority in Northern Ireland, in particular the distinction between security and community policing and the accountability of the Chief Constable to the authority?

I am glad to say that I had a most fruitful and successful meeting with the authority a couple of days ago, when very broad support was expressed for the consultative document. We both looked forward to co-operating in the translating of those broad-brush concepts into the appropriate legislative language. From time to time, the relationship of the public to the police and the police to the public is discussed in the intergovernmental conferences and I have no doubt that that will continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for extending to Northern Ireland the tape recording of interviews arid the right of access to a solicitor for suspects; and if he will make a statement.

Interviews with suspects detained under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 are tape recorded. The Government believe that electronic recording of interviews with detained suspects in Northern Ireland under the Prevention of Terrorism Act would not at present be in the overall interests of justice. The policy will be kept under review.

In the light of all that we know, is it not extraordinary that courts in Northern Ireland are still sending people away for life imprisonment on the basis of confessions which are not recorded, which were extracted at Castlereagh, and to which the interviewees' solicitors have been routinely denied access? Is it not about time that some of the lessons that we have learnt over here were applied in Northern Ireland—and who better to apply them than a Secretary of State who, as Attorney-General, presided over many of the disasters in our own legal system a few years ago?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's last comments and I am sure that the House does not either. Access to solicitors may be delayed for up to 48 hours on strict security grounds. The criteria governing a delay are laid out in section 45. A similar power to delay is also available to the police in England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Is it not inconsistent for the Government to allow criminal proceedings to be brought against terrorist suspects on the basis of tape recordings of conversations in the open air while, for the purpose of criminal proceedings, they refuse to allow tape recordings of telephone conversations by terrorist suspects?

The use of material collected by intercept means and governed by warrant has to be carefully considered and is a matter for the prosecution authorities.

The Minister will be aware that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, the independent commissioner for the holding centres, has recognised the need for proper safeguards to be introduced into the system, and he said so in his recent report. The report from John Rowe QC also suggested that terrorist suspects should be recorded on audiotape. I am disappointed at the Minister's reply. If those measures were introduced in Northern Ireland, clearly in our judgment they would build confidence in the security forces and provide police officers with protection against false allegations of physical and verbal harassment. I am at a loss as to why the Government still refuse to bring into operation these particular measures, which were recommended by their own advisers.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He raises very important and serious issues with which I have a good deal of sympathy. I am particularly grateful to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and others who carried out a review of the procedures and their recommendations and advice are treated seriously. Equally, however, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have to take into account the advice that we receive from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose chief duty is to prevent the killing and terrorism in Northern Ireland. We must heed his opinion when he raises the importance of maintaining the present structure, but we will keep the matter under review and explore the possibilities to see what may be done.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Commission of the European Union on surface links between Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland.

Apart from the correspondence on the electricity interconnector, there have been no discussions.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to ask about the electricity interconnector but about the decision by the Commission to include Stranraer and Larne in the trans-European network, which I hope that he will join me in welcoming. Has he seen the report in the Glasgow Herald suggesting that the Secretary of State for Scotland is resisting a European Union plan for multi-million pound improvements to the rail link from Stranraer through my constituency to the channel tunnel? Will he meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and try to persuade him to stop treating citizens of Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland as second-class citizens in Europe?

I very much welcome the decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers to include the route in the trans-European network. Of course, the railway is important to traffic from Northern Ireland and I will certainly have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the contract recently signed between Ayr hospital and health authorities in Antrim and Larne, which will bring mutual advantage to my constituents and to those of hon. Members representing Larne and Antrim? Does my hon. Friend approve of such links, and does he acknowledge that improved surface links between Stranraer and Lame will bring much further advantage?

I am grateful to hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the benefits of that arrangement.

If European funding becomes available, will the Minister bear in mind the new industries that he has welcomed to parts of Antrim which are close to Lane? We need not only facilities at the harbour, but facilities leading to the ports so that the traffic can travel that way. I join my colleagues in Scotland in supporting that development.

I welcome the inward investment projects to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I recognise the importance of access to Larne port. We hope to upgrade part of the road in 1997–98.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what matters he takes into consideration when deciding to establish an integrated school at post-primary level.

We seek to satisfy ourselves about the potential viability of the proposed school; about its religious composition; and about whether suitable accommodation is being provided. We also examine carefully the overall circumstances of each proposal, including any representations received. Those procedures apply also to primary schools.

Notwithstanding that we would all, in ideal circumstances, like to see integrated education in Northern Ireland, is it not absolutely profligate of the Government to support integrated secondary schools in, for example, my constituency of Fermanagh for 1 per cent. of the secondary school population when there is already over-provision of between 10 and 15 per cent. in that sector? How does the Minister think that the 99 per cent. of people will feel when they see small schools facing the axe so that money can be given to the 1 per cent. who will be privileged with their own special school?

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I hope that he will read the paper that I put out yesterday, from which he will see that we are considering options to enhance the quality of education in small rural schools and not to axe them. As to integrated schools, and the one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in particular, I fully respect his view. The representations that he made to me were given close consideration both by me and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. However, it is Government policy to encourage and facilitate integrated education where there is proven parental demand for it. It is also Government policy to give parents choice in education where that is possible. In the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, both criteria were met.

I very much welcome the move towards integrated education in Northern Ireland, but what are the criteria for considering an integrated school? Half the children on the island of Rathlin, for example, are educated in a home tuition unit and the other half in a Church school. Does that situation not present an ideal opportunity to allow the home tuition unit on Rathlin island to become an integrated school?

The hon. Lady will have heard me set out the criteria for an integrated school. One is the viability of the proposed school. Obviously we carefully consider any representations made to us, where there is sufficient parental demand in that context.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to be able to announce the commencement of detailed negotiations and discussions on the future of Northern Ireland.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).

Does my hon. Friend agree that a substantial body of opinion in Northern Ireland, southern Ireland and the United Kingdom is for the recommencement of detailed discussions and negotiations? Will not the time arrive when, if Sinn Fein and the men of violence fail to say that they do not support a continuation of violence, those discussions and negotiations must go ahead?

I agree with my hon. Friend, who properly reflects feeling in both parts of the island of Ireland. However, agreement will not be achieved by artificially forcing the pace, by shouted slogans or blazing headlines. It will be achieved only by a careful and considered advance by all participants towards a common and widely acceptable position which meets the aspirations of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.

As the Minister has declared that he is aware of the intense demand in Northern Ireland for the recommencement of inter-party talks, does he accept that their recommencement and the peace process are not mutually exclusive but could run in parallel? There is a feeling in Northern Ireland of procrastination surrounding the inter-party talks, which are the most meaningful Ray of establishing peace in the long run. Will the Minister also confirm that talks will be on the basis of the March 1991 inter-party agreement?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am certain that he would agree that, while we all wish to see multilateral talks recommence at an appropriate moment, it would be premature to try to get everybody around a table until the elements for agreement are in place. For that reason, I wish to continue my discussions with three of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to try to explore further what common ground is available on which we can advance.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months this country lost the lowest ever number of days to strikes? Is it not sad that that record is being spoilt by a trade union which, in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay claim, yesterday inflicted hardship and inconvenience on thousands of travellers and commuters, including many of my constituents in Hertfordshire? Is it not conspicuous that that is not being condemned in any quarter by the Labour party?

Overall, our industrial relations record is extremely good, and the number of days lost in strikes is lower than it has been for more than 100 years. We now lose fewer days to strikes than Germany, France or the United States per head of population. As for yesterday's strike, the disruption that was caused to millions of people was inexcusable. Most of the public sector has settled on increases around the rate of inflation. The dispute is over a bid for an 11 per cent. increase before negotiations have even begun about productivity. It is unacceptable, it cannot be right and it should be condemned by every Member of the House.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that when yesterday his Chancellor ruled out tax cuts he was admitting what the Prime Minister refused to admit on Tuesday—that a second round of tax increases will go ahead next year and will cost a typical British family £800 a year more in tax?

I suppose that there must be some occasion on which the right hon. Lady will address the current issue of the strike and not wriggle away from it. If she is so concerned about tax, perhaps she will now withdraw all the public expenditure promises that she and her colleagues have made, and which inevitably would lead to higher taxation in future. If she will not withdraw those public expenditure promises, will she please indicate how they will be paid for and by what amount tax will rise?

That is twice in one week that the Prime Minister has refused to answer the question. Let us try again. Taxes will go up next year, won't they? Just say yes.

The right hon. Lady knows the contents of the Budget and knows also that she is wriggling and hiding behind promises that she cannot substantiate. Our tax position is clear and open and people know what it is. We have set out a position that is right for this country and which has brought this country back to better economic circumstances than it has known for many years. That is an honest and straightforward position, unlike the position of the right hon. Lady who makes promises of increased expenditure with no indication whatever as to whether she will borrow to meet them and put up interest rates, or tax to meet them, or break those promises.

But does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that those tax increases, and the threat of interest rate increases, are a direct result of the Government's economic failure and their track record of boom and bust? Whom does he think the Chancellor was condemning—Lord Lawson as Mr. Boom, or the Prime Minister himself as Mr. Bust?

That was very well rehearsed, but it will not win the right hon. Lady very many votes. As for interest rates, I wonder if the right hon. Lady can remember a time when interest rates under a Labour Government were as low as they have been under this Government for the past 15 months. I wonder if she can remember a time when inflation was as low as it is under this Government now. I wonder if she can remember a time when our growth rate was twice as high as that of our European competitors: The answer is that she cannot—and, under any Labour Government, that would never be so.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour party has voted against every single tax reduction that has been introduced, over many years, by Conservative Governments, and has voted against every tax increase? Does he consider that to be consistency or stupidity?

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the Executive that is responsible to the House, and the Executive that must answer questions, not the Opposition. That is the basis on which our democracy is built.

I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was because I was so surprised to be called.

The Opposition's position is certainly consistently stupid, and stupidly consistent.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people are often much more sensible than politicians? If so, has he reflected that last week—not only in Essex, but in a continuous, uninterrupted line from Dover to Oban—his policies were rejected and Labour's were endorsed? Does he not recognise that he is increasingly seen as the captain of the Titanic—carrying on regardless, blaming the iceberg and determined to rearrange the deckchairs while he puts people's lives at risk with his own reckless policies?

Well, that was quite an effort. There are certainly occasions on which the public are much more sensible than politicians. They were much more sensible than Opposition politicians in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and they will be more sensible than Opposition politicians again at a later date in 1996 or 1997.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the administration of law in this country now protects the civil liberties of yobs, bullies, violent criminals and drug barons so effectively that the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are endangered? The Conservative party never wanted that, the people never wanted it and the Cabinet never wanted it. If the legal structure is being undermined, should we not find out who the termites are before introducing further criminal justice legislation?

I think that it is necessary to look at the interests of the majority of the people in the country. I share my hon. Friend's view: our present criminal justice legislation was formulated with that very much in mind, as were some of the ideas that I have outlined to the House on other occasions.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in support of his campaign for a more civilised Question Time, which I hope is still continuing, and in the hope of a rational reply, 24 hours ago I sent him the following supplementary question: because of his own personal responsibility and his Government's responsibility for introducing and promoting personal pensions, will he now give, in clear and simple language, a guarantee that the millions of people who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and occupational schemes and who have been subjected to bad advice will have all their losses made up and their full pension rights restored?

The hon. Gentleman may not be quite aware of the present situation. The regulator has made it clear that he will use his powers to ensure that anyone who was mis-sold a pension will have a remedy. There is no need for investors in personal pensions to be too concerned; the hon. Gentleman should have understood that. Within the next few weeks, the Securities and Investments Board is due to publish a full report setting out the terms of redress which should be applied to investors who have been disadvantaged by that advice. They would be wise to wait for that report and not listen to the hon. Gentleman's scaremongering.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the national health service reforms there was no such thing as equality of health treatment in this country and it depended entirely on where one lived? If one lived in Lancaster, one received good treatment, but if one lived in parts of the rest of the country, one did not. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the reforms, best practice is spreading throughout the land?

I can confirm that that is the case. The health reforms are spreading best practice in every part of the United Kingdom and removing many of the anomalies that existed previously. That, and the increased resources available to the national health service, are intended to ensure that we have the best possible national health service for our nation that we can possibly afford.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are currently spending £121,800 a year of taxpayers' money on the salary of the chairman of Railtrack, who works only a three-day week? Is that value for money?

If he turns Railtrack into the efficient organisation that customers who use trains wish to see, yes.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister convey to the local government commission my constituents' over-whelming gratitude for recommending the return of the ancient and valiant little county of Rutland? Will he hop across from Huntingdonshire and hang a horseshoe in Oakham castle to celebrate that sensible and popular decision?

I know from my own experience how strong my hon. Friend's campaign for the return of Rutland has been and I congratulate him on the outcome. He mentioned other counties. I am familiar with one near to Rutland, which I hope will also return. I believe that questionnaires are to be sent to every household, which means that local people will be able to express their views on the matter and on what they wish the outcome to be. That is the right way to proceed.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

If the Cabinet is so bad that it needs a drastic reshuffle, as he promised on Monday, should not the Prime Minister take his fair share of the blame and reshuffle himself as well?

In the interests of helping the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him, first, that whereas on Tuesday he told the House that unemployment was up in his constituency, today I can tell the House after yesterday's figures that it is down—and I hope that he is grateful. The words that he metaphorically put in inverted commas—"drastic reshuffle"—have not crossed my lips.

May I urge the Prime Minister at the forthcoming summit in Corfu to reject firmly the candidature of the Belgian Prime Minister for the presidency of the Commission? Even if Britain did not have an excellent candidate with a brilliant negotiating track record, is it not true that Mr. Dehaene is a federalist of the old-fashioned type and that no Belgian candidate would resist the ever-increasing demands of the Brussels bureaucracy?

At the moment there are only two declared candidates for the post—Sir Leon Brittan, whom we back strongly, and Dr. Ruud Lubbers. Both are highly respected in the European Community and are well known to all the member states. I have made no secret of my belief that Leon Brittan is the right candidate to be President of the Commission and he will have our strong support at Corfu. At this stage, I am not prepared to declare a position on any other candidate or possible candidate.