To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what ways the British Government have participated in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.

None. This is an initiative of the Irish Government, within their own jurisdiction, to enable democratic parties to consult and share in dialogue together.

Is it not time that the Government built on the real hopes of all the communities in Northern Ireland, which have been increased by the cessation of violence in the past three months? Should not the British Government now agree to send a representative to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, which has been established by the Irish Government, especially as they have been invited to do so?

If I may, I should, first, correct the hon. Lady on a misapprehension. The British ambassador was invited to the opening session of the forum. That is the only invitation that the British Government have received. As for talking to parties, as the hon. Lady is aware, we have been holding bilateral discussions with the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland for a considerable time. It has been announced today that a proposal has been made to hold an open meeting for exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein on Wednesday 7 December in Belfast.

As the Government have announced today that they will talk with the men of blood next week, and as that is highly resented by a vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, will the Minister tell us whether he rules out full-blown talks with the IRA so long as it keeps its killing machine intact and holds on to its guns and explosives?

We have made it clear over a long period that the exploratory dialogue would have three purposes: first, to explore the basis on which Sinn Fein would come to be admitted to an inclusive political talks process, secondly, to exchange views on how Sinn Fein would be able, over a period of time, to play the same part as current constitutional parties in the public life of Northern Ireland and, thirdly, to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence. Only after those exploratory talks are completed will the issue that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned arise. He might like to note that the last of the elements of exploratory dialogue would cover the decommissioning of arms.

As the southern Irish Forum for Peace and Reconciliation has not been particularly successful in resolving disputes between the Dublin political parties, does the Minister agree that much greater importance should be given to the two forums that the Minister has announced in his own jurisdiction?

Indeed, those are the forums for which the British Government are responsible. We have great hopes that the investment forum will produce significant benefits for Northern Ireland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although forums are important, the only real way to peace arid reconciliation will be through the paramilitaries on both sides handing in their arms so that those guns and explosives can be taken off the streets arid decommissioned?

I hope that it is clear to my hon. Friend, who asks an important question, that, if we are to get around the table to discuss the future governance of Northern Ireland and the relationships between the north and the south and, indeed, between the two Governments, then around that table can be only parties that are there on an equivalent basis. Obviously, in that regard, the decommissioning of arms is an important element.

Whatever may be the political position in the Republic of Ireland, it is a democracy and it will settle its differences in the normal way. Does the Minister agree that its outgoing Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, played a particularly important role in the peace process and that tribute should be paid to him for the contribution that he undoubtedly made in seeking to end the violence in the island of Ireland?

Today's announcement is consistent with the Government's policy, as enunciated over a long period.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the restoration of democratic accountability to Northern Ireland.

We wish to see a much greater degree of democratic accountability restored in Northern Ireland. We hope shortly to publish our own understanding of how that might fairly and workably be achieved, in the context of a wider settlement addressing all the relevant relationships.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the two economic forums—the one to be held in December in Belfast and the other in mid-January, at which local government representatives will meet the Prime Minister—will have the desirable effect of bringing together the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives so that they may work together in peace, which will in turn lead to the equally desirable objective of enabling them to design between themselves a practical and workable system for the governance of Northern Ireland?

Everything that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned can only be beneficial in its effect. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is very anxious that there should be as wide an opportunity as possible for elected representatives covering the whole spectrum of parties and of Northern Ireland to express their views, deriving from their local and elected responsibilities, on how the economy of Northern Ireland can best be progressed.

With regard to the restoration of democratic accountability, although I warmly welcome this morning's announcement, I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that many people are concerned. Will he take this opportunity to reassure them that this Government will not barter with the IRA, that there will be no surrender of principle and no appeasement and that this Government will not fete or flatter Mr. McGuinness, Mr. Adams and their henchmen because we cannot forget the evil that the IRA has done, and nor should we do so?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of his personal support and for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge that suspicions of the sort he characterised remain. I have dealt with them before, but it is necessary to continue to state that the Government recognise that there are suspicions—on the one side of some clandestine deal and, on the other, that there is an intention to restore an unreformed Stormont Administration. Neither is true and neither is capable of being true, but it is very important that I continue to say so. The Downing street declaration, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signed nearly a year ago with Mr. Reynolds, is informing and shaping the future of Northern Ireland, and will continue to do so.

In his response to the original question, the Secretary of State did not refer in any way to the diminution of democratic responsibility in Northern Ireland in the past couple of years, whereby local representatives have been taken off health and social services boards and are being threatened with removal from education boards. A plethora of quangos have been appointed, as well as nine next steps agencies, and accountability in Northern Ireland, such as it is, has been diminished under this Administration. Are we to wait years before the people of Northern Ireland can get answers to the questions, which they need answers to, about local administrations?

I very much hope that, implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question, is support for the restoration of local democratic accountability in Northern Ireland. I believe that everyone who is concerned about the good governance of Northern Ireland very much believes that that restoration is sorely needed, but it must take place in a way that takes account of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, and as part of an overall settlement. It is rather unjust, and uncharacteristically harsh of the hon. Gentleman, to say that democratic accountability has diminished under the present Administration. I do not think that that has been so at all.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the long historic connection between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is he aware that many Scots are watching with concern the movement towards democratic accountability—of which they approve—as action may be taken that will have a damaging ripple effect on Scotland?

I am aware of the anxieties to which my hon. Friend refers, but everybody in Scotland has grounds for being extremely thankful that their society and community is not divided in the way that Northern Ireland's is, and that neither are there antagonisms deriving from a history that is special to Northern Ireland.

I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has had a rather difficult time recently with not only the uncertainty in Dublin but minority government at home and, in the past 24 hours, a fair bit of external pressure. We should like to welcome the beginning of exploratory talks with Sinn Fein next Wednesday. Given the importance of economic changes to the future stability of Northern Ireland, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make clear what the status of Sinn Fein and the former loyalist paramilitaries will be at the Government's economic conference in 12 days?

On the hon. Lady's original remarks, I must say that I have come to believe that Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland are born with difficulties as the sparks fly upwards. None the less, it remains an excellent job to have.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet the new Taoiseach to discuss the progress of the peace process and other matters.

I look forward to the renewal of our work with the new Irish Government at an early date.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the steps now being taken, including the announcement made today, on the road to a lasting and permanent settlement are a vindication of the Prime Minister's role and that of the acting Taoiseach in making their historic declaration more than a year ago? Is not the joint declaration still a road to peace that the new Taoiseach should take?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is of course absolutely right. The Downing street declaration was a very simple declaration of fundamental principles. It declared that democracy, and the wishes of most of the people in Northern Ireland, would decide its future. Both Governments are shoulder to shoulder in support of that principle. Parallel with that is the belief that there is no place for violence, and what has happened since the declaration was inevitable.

In view of the concern that was expressed before the resignation of Mr. Reynolds that the British Government seemed to be moving at a much slower pace than the Irish Government in furthering the peace process, will the Secretary of State stop dragging his feet and arrange talks as soon as possible with the new Taoiseach, with a view to speeding up the peace process?

It is an uncomfortable thing to drag one's feet. I am not in the practice of doing so and I have never done so since I took on my responsibilities for Northern Ireland. A lot of criticism was levelled at the British Government initially, when, after the announcement on 31 August, we did not say that it was marvellous and that we would enter into exploratory discussions straight away. That criticism of our caution has died away and I do not hear it now. On the contrary, I hear widespread recognition of the fact that we were wise to be cautious. Widespread recognition has equally been made of the fact that the Prime Minister was right to say in Belfast at the end of October that we were now making a working assumption, which has led us now to make the decision to enter into discussions on 7 December.

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the cornerstone of the peace process is not the position of the IRA, or of those who claim to speak on behalf of the loyalist paramilitaries, but the joint action taken by two sovereign Governments, working together to an agreed programme? Nothing should be allowed to interfere with that. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman also agree that the core of that agreement is those Governments' joint commitment in the joint declaration of 15 December to remove the cause of conflict, to overcome the legacy of history and to heal the divisions that have resulted?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement, but, as to the second part of it, the underpinning of confidence in Northern Ireland is of critical importance by reason of the suspicions to which I have already referred in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). It has been of critical importance to furthering the objectives to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred that the Government have time and time again repeated that it is acceptance and agreement by most of the people living in Northern Ireland that will determine the future of Northern Ireland, that nothing will be sought to be imposed upon them and that the two Governments mean what they say in the Downing street declaration that democracy will decide the day. That is the most important thing that we could have done, and we have done it well and truly.

When the Secretary of State meets the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, will he inform him that, in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, there is widespread distrust and suspicion of corruption arising from the failure of the former Prime Minister of the Republic to appoint a High Court inspector to look into the scandalous International Investment fraud, which was operated from Dublin? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman urge the new Prime Minister to appoint such a High Court inspector as a means of building a little confidence on the way towards peace in Northern Ireland? Can he assure the House that the Northern Ireland Office was guilty of no collusion in assisting the authorities in the Irish Republic to cover up that scandal?

I am quite sure that I can offer the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he has requested. I do not think that it is helpful for me to intervene in matters within the jurisdiction of another sovereign state, although they are of undoubted great importance and gravity, and I do not propose to do so.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Who will speak for the people of Northern Ireland if the Secretary of State will not?

I shall take points of order after questions.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept it from me that his earlier comments on the reasons for and the correctness of his cautious approach to the peace process are widely applauded by the people of Britain?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says, and I take note of it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes in security arrangements he intends to make as a result of the IRA ceasefire.

We have always made it clear that, when terrorism is seen to have ended permanently, but not before, it will be possible to remove the preventive measures that have had to be put in place to protect the community.

As it appears that the Government have been pushed by the Americans into advancing those talks, and as this minority Government now depend for their continued existence on the support of the Ulster Unionists, and will therefore find it difficult to treat them impartially in any talks, would it not be sensible to make the one gesture that the Secretary of State can make—withdraw the troops from the streets? A return to normality is the best way of underpinning confidence.

I can assure the House that the Government are not pushed in any direction, but take decisions based on the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

In view of the stupid question from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who knows little about what is happening in the Province, and in view of the visits by members of the security forces to members of my constituency to tell them that they are being actively targeted by the IRA, how can the Prime Minister and Secretary of State agree to the removal of border road closure orders, particularly as many of the people who are under threat live along the border?

The hon. Gentleman is no stranger to the evil of terrorism, so I fully understand and sympathise with the anxiety that he expresses on behalf of his constituents. However, in removing border road closure orders, the Chief Constable, supported by the Army, takes into account the need to maintain security and to protect people living in border areas. There is no suggestion of reducing the support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the protection of those communities, especially in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Is the Minister aware of the unacceptable upsurge in ordinary crime since the ceasefire? Will he give the RUC sufficient resources to combat that more overtly?

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman obtains his information, but yesterday I spoke to a divisional chief superintendent, who assured me that ordinary crime had not increased, but that there had been a welcome increase in support for and contact with the police.

Will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that the Government will not negotiate with a criminal organisation such as the IRA, or with those who support them, such as Sinn Fein, or drop any hints or give any assurances about the gaol terms to be served by convicts who have been convicted of serious criminal offences, or offer any amnesties to people who have yet to be convicted of serious criminal offences or agree to differential policing arrangements in the Province? Will he assure the House that, whatever happens, we will never allow justice in this country to be politicised?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. There is no question of negotiation on the length of prison sentences. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, there will be no amnesty for those who have been properly convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the impartial courts in Northern Ireland; nor is there to be any change in the criminal justice system or the effectiveness of the police service.

Does the Minister agree that whatever security changes occur in Northern Ireland—and we hope that reductions will be made in security arrangements—the Government must do all in their power to provide jobs and training for those people working in security who will inevitably be made redundant? Will he assure the House that security changes will not mean an easier time in Northern Ireland for the burglar, the so-called joy rider or the drug trafficker?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new duties at the Dispatch Box. I assure him that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is developing a series of programmes to deal with the threat of ordinary crime of the kind that he describes. There will no diminution in the resources available to the police service in Northern Ireland or any change in the criminal justice system that would enable ordinary crime to go undetected or unpunished.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about greater contact between the public and the police. He will know that, notwithstanding the ceasefire, the campaign of intimidation against people in both communities, which involves punishment beatings and expulsions from communities, is continuing and is carried on by both IRA and loyalist groups. As the security forces are now able to go about their business without direct threat to themselves, is my right hon. Friend able to comment on the progress being made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to put criminal thugs who are intimidating communities where they belong?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There is no excuse at all for those who seek to usurp the law through any pretended duties of policing on the streets of Northern Ireland. The policing of Northern Ireland is a matter for the police service and for no one else. The RUC will vigorously investigate any allegations of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers with a view to making arrests and placing people before the courts.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the development of the framework document on the future of Northern Ireland.

Useful progress has been made, but there are still substantial questions on which more work is required. We hope to give priority to these in our relations with the new Government in the Republic of Ireland.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition support the strategy of the peace process deployed so far of locking the paramilitaries on both sides into the process and making it impossible for them to go back to their campaign of violence? Does he accept the need to develop a peace process that encompasses the whole spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. When he next goes to Northern Ireland he will be impressed by the quite new sensation of hope that seems to be apparent throughout the community, and the belief that it is unthinkable that violence should return. Those who may be minded to return to violence for political purposes will have to take heed of that. It is necessary that what is called the peace process should continue to retain the confidence of all sections of the community. Therefore, it has to be balanced.

The Secretary of State referred to continuing difficulties with the Irish Government in these discussions. Have the Irish indicated that they will accept their international obligations by dropping the territorial claim in article 2 of their constitution, or are they continuing their blackmailing demand that the unacceptable price for that is some form of tampering with the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and thus the Act of Union?

I do not recall referring to continuing difficulties with the Irish Government. I said that much more work needed to be done on a number of topics. Obviously, as everybody knows, the question of a territorial claim embodied in the Irish constitution is a matter of great importance in this process. I will not break the confidentiality of the discussions that are going on, but the hon. Gentleman and others will wish to know that the importance of that topic is well understood by this Government and by the Irish Government.

Has the Secretary of State given any further consideration to publishing the minutes of the three-strand talks so that the House would be in a better position to determine how the framework document might throw light on the way in which it can overcome the difficulties that the minutes may highlight?

Quite an important part of the three-strand discussions in 1992 was the fact that they should be in confidence. That was more or less observed at the time. I do not want to go beyond that and publish accounts of what happened two years ago as I do not think that it would be helpful at this juncture.

While developments are taking place, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman put on hold other measures that are opposed by the great majority of people across Northern Ireland—for example, the privatisation of the water industry?

I have already made it clear that I do not anticipate introducing proposals in that regard during this Parliament. One matter that will have to be taken account of, at any time, is the very great anomalies in the charging system for water services in Northern Ireland.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the House unreservedly welcomes the peace process, which brings with it the likely end of direct rule in the north of Ireland. Earlier, he said that he would favour a democratically elected assembly or forum for the north of Ireland. If that is so right—and it is—for the north of Ireland, why is it so wrong for Wales and for Scotland?

I recall that in, I think, 1976, the question of devolution was referred to the people of Wales and of Scotland and it received a rather negative answer—

The majority were in favour. The Secretary of State was wrong twice.

That was a very loud Scottish intervention. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his point if he stands up in a moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the guidelines on market testing in the NHS community care trusts.

Health and social services trusts, including those providing community care services, are subject to Government policy on market testing as set out in the White Paper "Competing for Quality". In addition, they have been provided with guidance on the conduct of market testing in the form of a compendium of good practice.

Does the Minister agree that Government guidelines on the market testing of NHS community care trusts in Northern Ireland are implemented more forcefully there than they are in the remainder of the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that there has been unwarranted Government interference in the operation of trusts, which has led to a deterioration in quality and in standards of patient care? Does he admit that the Government have been two-faced in their policy on health and social services and have acted against the general interests of the public?

The Government's definition of, and policy on, market testing in health and personal social services for Northern Ireland is the same as that applied to all other parts of the health service in the United Kingdom. I remind the hon. Lady that the purpose of market testing is to ensure that the resources available are used as effectively as possible for the benefit of patients.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Does he agree that, wherever market testing has been undertaken, it has produced savings and value for money for the taxpayer? Its opponents are more interested in jobs for the boys than in quality of service to the customer or value for money for the taxpayer.

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's warm welcome. The savings from market testing are used in the HPSS for the benefit of patients and clients. They are pooled with funds from other cost improvement programmes and the growth moneys provided by Government to fund service developments and meet new pressures.

I, too, welcome the Minister to his position and the shadow Northern Ireland team to its first Northern Ireland Questions today.

I agree partially with the hon. Gentleman that implementing in-house service level agreements without competition may improve efficiency and effectiveness, but they do not prove that the optimum levels have been achieved, nor do they satisfy market testing criteria. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I take on board the current difficulties in the Province, but I am assured that there is no lack of funds in the social services to meet the needs of the population.

One important aspect of being cared for in the community is the ability of elderly people to be able to afford to heat their homes. Do the Minister and his colleagues realise that they ignore at their peril the opposition that exists among the people of Northern Ireland and the representatives of all their parties to the imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel?

I recognise the opposition from Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, but I refer the House to the comments in the Budget speech only this week that proper compensation is to be paid to pensioners to compensate for VAT at 17.5 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the final proposals for constituency boundaries will be published.

The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland has stated that it will not be able to report its final recommendations before 1995. My hon. Friend should approach the Boundary Commission itself for further information concerning the timetable.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the impartiality of the Boundary Commission and its chairman, the House can rest in confidence that there will not be any intended or, I hope, unintended, political effects of the redesignation of the boundaries in Northern Ireland?

I totally endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The Boundary Commission is responsible to Parliament. It is independent, and that independence must be respected.

What representations have been made from either the Maryfield secretariat, the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin or Dublin Government Ministers through the intergovernmental council to influence the findings of the Boundary Commission? Will the Minister assure us that he has responded by rejecting any approach and by telling Dublin bluntly that the business which is conducted under the chairmanship of Madam Speaker is none of its business?

That matter has been raised on two occasions at the intergovernmental conference. On both occasions the Irish Government have been reminded of the independence of the commission.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums he intends to spend on new roads in Northern Ireland in each of the next five years.

Subject to the overall public expenditure situation the Department currently plans to spend about £12 million on major road schemes in each of the next five years.

Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that none of that money will be frittered away on the restoration of cross-border roads, which would quite possibly be nugatory expense? Will he remember the absolute necessity of massive upgrading on the road between Belfast and Larne?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the importance of the road from Belfast to Larne, but expenditure on roads, including bridges and street lighting, should remain in excess of £150 million per annum during the next three financial years, and the current top expenditure priorities are maintenance, bridge strengthening and traffic control in urban areas. They do not include the border crossing areas.

May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and wish him every success with his new responsibilities? When will the Belfast cross-harbour bridge open, and will it not be a welcome addition to Northern Ireland's road network?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We hope to open the cross-harbour bridge to traffic in January 1995. It was built at a cost of £60 million—which was in addition to the normal expenditure on roads in the Province.

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

The Downing street declaration continues to underpin our approach to the peace process. We have proposed that exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein shall commence next week. We intend shortly thereafter to do likewise with representatives of loyalists.

Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that nothing will he allowed to stand in the way of progress with talks on the framework document? I refer particularly to the uncertainty of the Dublin Government and to the fact that the British Government are now a minority Government.

The most notable obstruction or difficulty in the way of progress with the joint framework document is that we do not have a new Government in the Republic at the moment. I am confident that the British Government can look forward to a fruitful period of discussion, for as long as necessary, with the new Dublin Government on the joint framework document. I am confident also that all parties in the Republic are as keen as we are to make progress.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the speech made by the French Prime Minister, Mr. Balladur, on the need to resist centralism and federalism in Europe? Is not that speech evidence that the entente is especially cordiale at present, and that the British Government are winning the arguments over the right kind of Europe for the future?

I certainly did read Mr. Balladur's speech. In fact, we discussed what he was likely to say when we met at Chartres a short while ago. I would have been pleased to make the speech that Mr. Balladur made—I nearly did at Leiden. He is right to reject federalism in favour of flexibility, say that we should avoid the encroachment of European institutions on national institutions, and talk of the need to look again at European policies as well as institutions, to keep costs down as we examine the question of enlargement. That is clear confirmation that the arguments made by the British Government for some time are increasingly gaining ground across Europe.

As to value added tax on domestic fuel, given that it is now clear that eight and three quarter million pensioners will not even be eligible for cold weather payments, and given the Prime Minister's specific promise at the last general election that he would not raise VAT, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to Labour's amendment next week, so that the House can vote on whether he has kept his promise?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have already had four votes on VAT. He neglected to mention that, in real terms, even after last year's VAT increase of 8 per cent., fuel prices actually fell. The position of the 15 million people who receive compensation for the VAT increase is, in real terms, better than it was before VAT was imposed on domestic fuel.

I gather that the Chancellor is in one-to-one meetings with the Back-Bench rebels over VAT. Would not it be better if all Conservative Members of Parliament had one-to-one meetings with their constituents so that they could know of their anger at the promise betrayed?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends might care to discuss carbon tax with their constituents and explain to them—[Interruption.] Clearly they do not wish to discuss anything with their constituents, such as why they oppose VAT because it is politically expedient for them to do so, and why they propose a carbon tax that would have precisely the same effect on fuel prices.

Will my right hon. Friend outline briefly his Government's policy on the deployment of troops in Bosnia and confirm the House's support for the actions of General Rose?

I most certainly and unequivocally reaffirm the House's support for the actions taken by General Rose. He has had an extremely difficult job. I believe that he has done that job as well as it could have been done by any commanding officer anywhere in the world. If I may say so, I believe that most hon. Members and most people in this country will bitterly resent the criticism of General Rose voiced in some United States newspapers.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

During the past couple of days, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have tried to persuade us that all their tax increases are something of a temporary aberration from Conservative instincts. Even if that were so, how does he explain the fact that, under this Government, the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers received tax cuts of something like £47,000 on average, while the low-paid have seen their taxes increase by about £400 a year? Is not that a permanent feature of Conservative instincts?

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is a permanent feature of Conservative instincts: the fact that real, disposable net incomes, at all levels, have risen. That, of course, is what affects people's living standards. Post-taxation, they have more spending power in their pockets than they had before. That is undoubtedly the case right the way down the scale and, I believe, will remain the case.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to get the unemployed back to work is to give them incentives and training, and not to bash business men with a minimum wage and a training levy?

Yes, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. Priority is given to getting the unemployed back to work. We have seen unemployment fall more dramatically in this country than in any other European country. There was a wide range of measures in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget which will add to that return to work.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept the advice of the all-party group on pensions that, despite the Government's compensation package, the individual pensioner will be 56p a week worse off if VAT on fuel rises to 17.5 per cent? In the light of that, will he tell his hon. Friends who are committed to defending pensioners against that attack to stick by their principles next week?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I had to say to the Leader of the Opposition just a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the consistent position that we have taken about VAT on fuel and the consistent position that the House has endorsed on at least four occasions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern expressed by many of our constituents about people who are not ordinarily resident in this country coming here to litigate their disputes in the English courts at the British taxpayers' expense on legal aid? Will he consider withdrawing civil legal aid from such people in future?

I shall certainly seek the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. I am aware of the concern that has arisen. As my hon. Friend knows, the matter is very complex, but it raises a great many concerns among many people in the country. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is still committed to the Rio environmental targets, and in particular to efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? If he is committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, how will that commitment be financed? Does he accept that the Government's policy was to use the Energy Saving Trust, and that so far the trust has virtually no money with which to reach its targets?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

What does my right hon. Friend think of the trench warfare being conducted against grant-maintained schools by Labour-controlled councils, particularly Kent county council? Kent has vetoed the only application for a new nursery unit in Gravesend because the school is grant-maintained.

I have no comment to make about any right hon. or hon. Member who seeks the best for his or her children; I am sure that we would all do that. My only criticism would be that the policy for everyone should not be to remove the same choices from millions of other people.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to the latest figures, the average household fuel bill in Northern Ireland is 27 per cent. higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he explain why the VAT compensation package announced on Tuesday failed to take that difference into account?

As Northern Ireland would be the first to accept, we are a united kingdom as a whole, and our legislation stretches across the United Kingdom: that position is taken very firmly by Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. It is also true that we see from Government support across the United Kingdom—I take these figures broadly from memory—that the degree of underlying public support for Northern Ireland is substantially higher than that for other parts of the United Kingdom. The figure for Scotland is substantially above that for Wales, and the figure for Wales is substantially above that for England. It is in that way that we seek to ensure a proper equity of support for services and people throughout the United Kingdom.

Following my right hon. Friend's talks with the Republican leader Senator Dole, will he confirm that he made it clear to the senator that, whatever the differences may be over Bosnia, they should not be allowed to undermine the commitment of his country and ours to the Atlantic alliance?

I had an extremely useful exchange with Senator Dole. We spent some time considering the Atlantic alliance and there is no doubt whatever about Senator Dole's whole-hearted support for NATO, both now and in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

The Prime Minister has been asked three times this afternoon to justify his policy on VAT; three times he has failed to answer the question. Does he accept that, no matter what he says, pensioners do not believe him, because they know that an extra £1 a week will not pay their bills? Why has the Prime Minister betrayed the pensioners of the nation?

The hon. Lady may have repeated a question that has been asked before, but she should have listened to the answers. In reality, we have put in place a generous package to compensate not only pensioners but others for the effects of VAT.

Not enough.

The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Not enough," and that is just another illustration of the fact that the Opposition claim that they would not put up taxes, they oppose every tax increase, but they would choose to put up expenditure and have no idea how they would fund any one of their policies. That is not new Labour: it is the old Labour that the electorate have rejected time after time.

Does my right hon. Friend think that many people in this country would support the legalisation of cannabis or the party that advocates it?

I certainly would not support the legalisation of cannabis, and I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this country would support it either.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

Why has the Prime Minister sanctioned the dismissal of 600 uniformed front-line customs officers this week? Does he agree with the Paymaster General that the dismissal of those 600 officers will compromise the Government's fight against illegal drugs and pornography?

The hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) asked that question on Tuesday and I told him then that it will not. Since then I have had the opportunity of discussing it with the chairman of Customs and Excise and she confirms that it will not.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I have two statements first.