To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for hon. Members to assist the peace process in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Government's sustained efforts to encourage all-party talks on a comprehensive political settlement will continue to he supported in all parts of the House.

My right hon. and learned Friend will recall the murder of the Isle of Wight's previous Governor, Lord Louis Mountbatten, so he knows that Conservative Members understand the pain of Ulster. Does he agree that, in the interests of the peace process, when the joint framework document is published all hon. Members should take a considered view of the overall package and not seize on certain elements of it? Will it not be in the best interests of all people in Northern Ireland if all hon. Members who represent parties in Northern Ireland take part in discussions on the contents of the peace document, for surely this is a unique opportunity to give lasting peace a chance?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We all recall the horrific act of terrorism with which his constituency is associated, as he said. It was reflective of the many, many hundreds that have afflicted the people of Northern Ireland. I agree with the approach which my hon. Friend helpfully suggests to the publication of the joint framework document, if that is agreed, as I hope it will be. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is not the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) unduly optimistic in assuming that Ministers will admit Northern Ireland representatives to any meaningful role in consultation or pay the slightest heed to what they say? Does the Secretary of State accept that it is highly dangerous falsely to allege divisions within parties, although that is not unusual in this House and in other quarters? Is it not even more dangerous to pursue the course of threatening to call the bluff of Northern Ireland elected representatives, a tactic that has failed so miserably and so disastrously in the past?

On consultation, as the two Governments seek to use the document to offer a shared understanding of a possible outcome to the talks process, which would be consistent with the joint declaration, obviously—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who asked the substantive question, has left the Chamber. Perhaps his colleagues would let him know my view on such matters. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State. Please continue.

We have therefore wanted to learn the viewpoints of all parties, including, naturally, the party led by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). We had reason to believe that we were confident that we knew the views of the Ulster Unionist party, to which we naturally attach importance. It is a question not of calling anybody's bluff but of inviting all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to consider the issues that will be addressed in the joint framework document, and to address them together, whether bilaterally or around the table, in a way that was done fruitfully in 1992, and in a way that offered the opportunity—which was taken—for individual parties to table their own papers, whether on position or policy, which were used to great effect.

As the question relates to the peace process, will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what peace process we are actually referring to and talking about? Recently, the Prime Minister spoke to the people of the United Kingdom and of Northern Ireland. He said that, for the past five months, the people of Northern Ireland had been living without fear. Does the Secretary of State believe that that is factually correct? During those months, people have been murdered, bodies of young and old have been seriously brutalised by iron bars and clubs with nails, families have been, and are being, removed from their homes in my constituency because of continued intimidation and threat by the IRA, businesses have been bombed, not one pound of Semtex has been surrendered by the IRA, not one AK47 has been given up by the IRA and not one member of the IRA has renounced violence. Surely this is a tactical process rather than a peace process.

I suggest that the people whom the hon. Gentleman represents, among the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, reflect on the contrast in their lives between the time before the ceasefires were announced—or whatever one likes to call them—and the past five months. I acknowledge that acts of terrorism have continued; the murder of Mr. Frank Kerr in Newry was a particularly brutal example. I acknowledge that so-called punishment beatings have continued, which are no less political in their purpose than what went before.

Does the Secretary of State agree that he can help hon. Members to assist the peace process by insisting that the framework document and the Government's own document on strand 1 are published together? Will he tell hon. Members that both documents should be considered together, not separately?

Whether it is called the peace process or not, it will certainly assist people to realise that the Government are to be relied on when they say that neither of the documents is intended to be imposed. Neither document is intended as a blueprint. The documents are intended as aids to discussion and negotiation, which is what we hope will ensue.

To further hon. Members' understanding of the peace process, will my right hon. and learned Friend return to his words a few moments ago? Are we to understand that the framework document is by no means a draft treaty, and is certainly not an exclusive blueprint, but is intended to promote genuine consultation, and that any constitutional party of Northern Ireland is at liberty to produce any alternative suggestion during bilateral talks with the Government?

I am happy to confirm that and it cannot be said too frequently. I have already indicated that, during the last talks process, papers were produced by all sides, including the British Government, who played an important part in achieving the contingent agreement which was reached, particularly on strand 1. At the last Northern Ireland Question Time on 19 January, I told my hon. Friend something to the effect that we want to use that document to help get the parties back around the table again—not to make them conform to anything but simply to discuss the issues addressed in that paper. That remains the position. I hope that that will happen and, when it does, I look forward to papers being produced again by all parties.

At this time of delicate discussions with Dublin, is the Secretary of State aware of the House's disappointment that there will not be a statement today on the appalling behaviour of so-called football fans—they were masquerading as that, but were really fascists—in Dublin? Will he join me in condemning their actions? Will he guarantee to the House that he will not jeopardise progress towards a balanced constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland by allowing any party to enter into pre-emptive negotiations?

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I must take points of order, as usual, at the end of Question Time and after any statements.

Is this Northern Ireland Question Time or Dublin Question Time?

Order. Secretary of State.

I will not enter into the question of a statement, because I do not want to blur an expression of feelings which I think is shared by every hon. Member and everyone in the country. I have seen and read of what happened with utter disgust and I feel a sense of personal shame that it was done by people associated with my own country. For that reason, I do not mind saying that, at the next opportunity, I shall offer expressions personally not only of shame but of apology. As for the second matter, I think that we want to get to publication of this document as soon as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it remains Government policy to support the integrity of the United Kingdom based upon the consent of the inhabitants of each of its component parts.

Yes. We wholeheartedly support the Union in its present form. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, it is, in fact and in law, an integral part of the United Kingdom, and the Government welcome and will support that position so long as it remains the wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland.

Will my hon. Friend reiterate the fact that, whereas the people of Northern Ireland will have the final say in all this through the referendum, the Conservative and Unionist party feels that membership of the United Kingdom by Northern Ireland is of immense value and that the United Kingdom is of greater value than the mere sum of its four parts?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I would go further and say that the strongest cement that holds the United Kingdom together is the consent of the majority of the people of each of its component parts, which is something of which we are very much aware.

Does the Minister agree that, if there is to be acceptance of stated Government policy on the United Kingdom, however neutral on Northern Ireland, there has to be confidence in the integrity of those who speak for the Government? Can he give us one valid reason why we as Ulster Unionists should not question his integrity, that of the Secretary of State and even that of the Prime Minister, in that we feel that we have been not only deceived but betrayed? Does the Minister not understand the depth of Unionist frustration and understand that we perceive that there has been capitulation to pan-nationalism and IRA thugs who threaten to use their guns and Semtex again if their will is not expressed in the Government document?

I can only state regret at the hon. Gentleman's original remarks about the integrity of myself and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that, in due course, he will reconsider his remarks, especially when the joint framework document is published and he is able to see what is in it in relation to the various consultations that have taken place in the past 12 months with, among others, members of his party, the Ulster Unionist party, who were sent to speak to me about the parameters that I should take into account in terms of these negotiations.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Downing Street declaration, with all its constitutional implications, still stands? Does he agree that the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland deserve a just, genuine and lasting peace and that they will not want to put up with party political shenanigans? Does he further agree that the final arbiters of any framework document will be the people themselves, and no one else?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recalling to the House the Downing Street declaration, because it was a statement of principles. The key principles enunciated in it were those of democracy and consent. Hon. Members will once again, I believe, see when the joint framework document is published, if that is what happens, that it, too, is based on the essential principles of democracy and consent.

The Minister will be aware that when the joint framework document is eventually published as a basis for discussion and negotiation, it will be welcomed by almost everyone in the House. Given the fact that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), have backed the triple-lock process wholly and fully, should not the ordinary people of Northern Ireland expect and demand their elected representatives to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue with the Government about the future governance of Northern Ireland?

The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that all the parties from Northern Ireland in the House have very strong and genuine arguments to make and very strong and genuine positions to state. I hope that they will take the opportunity of stating those within the context that the joint framework document will make possible, by opening up a situation where negotiations, discussion and dialogue may again take place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to proceed with water privatisation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

As the then Minister of State made clear to the House in April 1993, privatisation of water and sewerage services will not be possible in the lifetime of this Parliament. The Government intend in the interim to establish the Department of the Environment's water executive as a next steps agency by April 1996.

Does the Minister accept that if there is one issue which brings together all the elected members of Northern Ireland, either in this House or in local government, and the peoples of Northern Ireland, it is opposition to the privatisation of water services in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that the people of Northern Ireland, who enjoy the opportunity to pay their water charges with their general rate, will oppose any changes from such a procedure? Does he also accept that many people in Northern Ireland, especially those on low incomes, benefit greatly from assistance with their water charges through the general rate refund and that to take that away from them would be a crime? Will he forget all ideas about privatisation of water services in Northern Ireland and leave them as they are so that people may continue to enjoy that service?

I reiterate what I said a moment ago. There are no proposals to privatise the water services in the lifetime of this Parliament. Ministers have already had discussions with, and received correspondence from, locally elected representatives and others, and the Government are aware of the strong feelings and concerns on the issue. Although I welcome views from interested parties, the Government believe that privatisation will bring benefits to Northern Ireland, as it has done elsewhere.

Is the Minister aware of reports that grazing animals are being allowed access to the periphery areas of reservoirs, thereby causing a risk of pollution? Will the Minister confirm that the filtration processes are working efficiently?

I am happy to confirm that filtration processes are working efficiently. The straying of animals into the water executive's area has not been brought to my attention, but if the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me, I shall look into it in detail.

Why does the Minister feel it necessary to impose yet another quango on Northern Ireland, which already has 160 with which to deal? Why is he still placing uncertainty over the future of the water industry, even after the next general election? Why does he not accept that water privatisation has proved intensely unpopular in England and Wales and proposals for it are proving unpopular in Scotland?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, experience has shown that agencies enable a better and much more customer-focused service to be provided. They enjoy certain financial and management freedoms which allow them to focus on achieving a more appropriate and cost-effective delivery of service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the progress made towards the publication of a framework document and of the Government's proposals for the internal administration of Northern Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further discussions he has had with representatives of political parties regarding the framework document; and if he will make a statement.

We hope to publish the joint framework document and the Government's proposals for the internal administration of Northern Ireland as soon as possible. In the course of discussions with the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, I have discussed the principles that we would expect to underpin a settlement relating to all three sets of relationships.

Will the Minister state the process by which these documents will fall to be considered by the Northern Ireland political parties? Would it not be hard for people in Great Britain to understand if any of Northern Ireland's political leaders declined to take part in the process of discussion and denied the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to vote for or against a considered set of proposals?

Having heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, I should remind him that any referendum would be not on a set of proposals produced by the two Governments but on the outcome of discussions that take place on the basis, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, of the joint framework document and other views expressed by other interested parties.

I call Mr. Skinner.

My question is coupled with Question 5.

It is my understanding that Questions 4 and 8 are linked.

I received a note at the beginning of Question Time informing me that one question had been withdrawn and the questions had been renumbered. I may be wrong.

No. The linked questions are the questions tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—Nos. 4 and 8—which relate to the framework document.

I apologise; I was wrongly informed.

I had a letter saying that my question was linked with Question 8. Then again, the Government do not know whether they are on their head or their backside.

Questions 4 and 8 are linked.

Is the Minister aware that if ever there was a need for the framework document and a peaceful Irish solution, it was best exemplified by the horrific events at Lansdowne Road last night? Does he also agree that, for the matter to be resolved in the long term, we shall need a Government with a large majority and not a Government who have to depend on temporary pacts and alliances, with support being withdrawn week by week? Long-term resolution of the problem will probably need a Labour Government with a new idea.

I can only say that, in the light of the present situation, with the future of Northern Ireland very much at the centre of what we should be considering, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are exactly constructive or helpful.

Although I am very willing to wait for the publication of that document, it is important to point out to my hon. Friend that that which has seeped out so far, whether intentionally or unintentionally, has given some Conservative Members room for concern. If, indeed, that which has seeped out is what will be in that document, it may well be that some Members who would describe themselves as Unionists will take a less than sanguine view of the contents.

May I advise my hon. Friend, as I have advised others, that I think that it is important to wait to see precisely what is in the joint framework document, if a joint framework document is agreed? Equally, I would ask him to wait to look at precisely what is in the Government's own proposals on internal institutions to see whether they match the criteria that he would seek for such institutions.

Why, whenever Ministers speak of the framework document and the peace process, do they roll the two together? It is an absolutely fundamental error to talk about two separate things as though they were one and the same. In so doing, they leave themselves open to pressure from the IRA under the threat of resumed violence if they do not give the IRA what it wants.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct. Certainly, I do not think that he should draw that inference from anything that I have said in answer to this question. What I was saying, which is very important, is that the joint framework document is two legs of a three-legged stool. The third leg of that stool is the Government's proposals for the internal arrangements within Northern Ireland. It is very important that that package is looked at as a whole. I hope that Unionist Members, who have always struck me as people of great reason—I believe that to be the case—will do that.

As we await the framework document, is it not informative to remind ourselves of what Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major have in common? They have all gone ahead of the Unionists, they say; they have all sold out Unionism, they say; and they have all tried to create a united Ireland against the wishes of the people of the north of Ireland, would that it were so. Will the Minister confirm that underlying the framework document will be the principle of consent, that consent by definition requires agreement and that agreement by definition threatens no one except those who get undue pleasure out of threatening and being threatened?

I personally do not think that the process in which we are engaged is to be assisted by anybody threatening anybody else. The process, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, is based on consent, and consent requires agreement; but in order to achieve agreement, there has to be dialogue. The purpose of the joint framework document and the document being put forward by the Government on internal arrangements within Northern Ireland has one central purpose: to get the parties back talking to each other again, as the people of Northern Ireland are constantly demanding that the Governments and their elected representatives should do.

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

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

Separate exploratory dialogues with Sinn Fein and loyalist parties have been held. It is desirable that they continue.

Has not the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) actually said that he does not expect to live in a united Ireland in his lifetime? Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that Ulster Unionists should take some reassurance from the fact that the Conservative party, more than the other two main political parties, is the party of the Union, and that Conservative Members will simply not countenance a united Ireland or all-Ireland bodies coming into place unless it is quite clear that a majority of the people in Northern Ireland themselves actually approve that?

Of course that is so, and my hon. Friend and his colleagues will not be put to that test for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just explained: that the heart, core and centre of what the framework document, if agreed, will propose is consent and agreement. The constitutional guarantee of the future status of Northern Ireland is long-standing, and it will be compatible with anything that the British Government are prepared to propose in the joint framework document.

Will the Secretary of State tell us frankly and clearly where the Government's working assumption that the IRA is in a permanent ceasefire now stands? Is not it true that dozens of young men have been beaten to a pulp by IRA punishment squads and that 39 families have had to be removed from their homes in the past few months under the Government's special purchase of evacuated dwellings scheme? Does not the IRA delegation—or, as those involved call themselves, the Sinn Fein delegation—which comes to Stormont from time to time refuse to speak on behalf of the IRA, and say that it has nothing to do with the IRA? Is not it true that those involved refuse to talk about the decommissioning of weapons? How long will the Secretary of State head up this charade that is supposed to be a peace process?

There are a number of issues in that question. The first part related to the working assumption, which the Prime Minister announced in October and which the Government were prepared to make: that the ceasefire was intended to be for good. That assumption depends on what is done and on what is not done. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to activities which, as I said to the hon. Member for. Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) a minute ago, are no less political in their intention than what went before the ceasefire. Those activities put a strain on that working assumption.

Has not national backing from successive Governments and the determination not to have the United Kingdom destroyed by the bombs and bullets of the IRA and not to be pushed off course by the turning of women into widows and children into orphans helped to start the peace process? More controversially, might not extreme and fearful Unionism do more to undermine support for the Government's policy than some of the work of the provisional IRA over the years?

I thought that this question was going to be helpful. I do not want in any way to suggest that I underestimate the grounds for fear that people on whatever side of the political equation in Northern Ireland have. The history of Northern Ireland provides a ready explanation for the fears, anxieties and suspicions that abound. Of course the unknown is more capable of producing those things than what is known, and that is why I, along with most people in Northern Ireland, look forward very much to having the document published. The sole purpose of the document is to suggest a possible outcome to the resumed talks process, and we shall invite people to come back together to discuss the issues that it addresses. I hope and believe that that will occur.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the nature of the questions in the House today suggests that there is a need for the speedy publication of the framework document as soon as possible, and that the clear hope of most hon. Members is that everyone will consider the package on the table and make a judgment on all parts of it? I simply add that obviously that is our focus, and understandably the focus of the Government at the moment, but there is growing anxiety on the Opposition Benches that the parallel process to the unfolding framework document is the need for economic regeneration. In meeting after meeting that I have had in Northern Ireland, people have been seriously worried that the Government lack any clear strategic plan about the way in which additional funding for Northern Ireland will be spent to help the process.

I think that I have said enough about the joint framework document to be excused from dealing with it once again. I do not find the depression that the hon. Lady apparently meets in her welcome visits to the Province. I find people rejoicing in the fact that unemployment is decreasing on a steadily established trend of more than 1,000 a month. We have better figures now for employment and unemployment than we have had for the past 13 years. I invite the hon. Lady to cheer up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to hold discussions with editors and reporters concerning the Northern Ireland peace process.

My ministerial colleagues and I have frequent contact with representatives of the press and broadcasting organisations at all levels in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Their questions are wide ranging and cover all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs, including the "peace process". There will be facilities for the media to study the joint framework document if and when it is published, along with our proposals for discussion on internal institutions in Northern Ireland.

I strongly welcome the Government's determination not to be thrown off course or scared by extreme views and mischief making. Does my hon. Friend have any more information on the recent mischievous press leaks, in The Times and other newspapers, about the draft proposal?

An official inquiry into the leak is under way, headed by a senior Northern Ireland Office official. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate, pending the outcome of that investigation. I think, however, that it is important, during the process of seeking a settlement to the problems of Northern Ireland, that the media play their part by keeping the public fully informed of what is happening.

Is it not passing strange that a Government who, allegedly, are defending the Union should, through a Government official, advise a journalist or an editor that their policy is to face down the Unionists? Will the same assiduousness be shown in tracing that official as, apparently, has been shown in tracing those who leaked to The Times?

If the hon. Gentleman has any specific information to give me or my right hon. and learned Friend about that matter, we should be pleased to hear it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to return jury trials to Northern Ireland.

The majority of trials on indictment in Northern Ireland are already conducted before a jury. As we have made clear in the past, when violence ends, the emergency legislation—which includes provision for non-jury trials—will have served its purpose. As lasting peace becomes firmly established in Northern Ireland, normality can return.

Does the Minister agree that now is the time to repeal the emergency legislation and give the right to a jury trial to everyone in Northern Ireland—a right that has been denied to them for nearly 15 years or more? Does he agree that it is a fundamental right of all citizens that they should have an opportunity, if they are indicted on a serious charge, to appear before a jury, not before the fundamentally unfair system of a judge sitting with no jury and making decisions?

I refute the suggestion that the Diplock courts are in any way unfair. That is obviously not true. It is equally correct to say that it is the duty of the Government to justify the retention of the emergency legislation, and to keep it firmly under review, which the Government do. The most recent statistics available, for 1993, show that 877 cases were disposed of by the Crown courts in Northern Ireland for indictable offences, of which 256 were scheduled offences dealt with by single-judge courts.

Does the reduction in the number of trials before the single-judge courts show that there has been a reduction in the number of people being apprehended and charged for terrorism? Is that a reflection of the authorities' failure to investigate and pursue terrorist acts that have occurred in the past? Is that not an example of a de facto amnesty, and consequently a breach of the Government's undertaking that terrorist crimes of the past would continue to be pursued?

I firmly reject any suggestion of an amnesty for terrorist offenders. I can assure the House that the police service will pursue all offences with the utmost vigour under the law. The downturn in violence since 31 August, which the House will welcome, has meant that fewer cases coming to the notice of the police and before the courts are related to terrorist crimes. That is an extremely welcome development.

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

This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will my right hon. Friend join me and every other Member of the House in condemning the appalling scenes of violence and vandalism in Dublin last night? Does he agree that those people are a disgrace to the United Kingdom and an affront to football fans? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to prevent such behaviour from occurring again either at home or abroad?

I agree that the behaviour of a thuggish minority at the match last evening was a disgrace and a great embarrassment. I do not believe that the people involved are sports fans, nor do I believe that they represent the true face of this country or British sport. The Football Association and the Irish Football Association have launched a full inquiry into exactly what happened and will discover what lessons can be learnt for the future. I have said that we will do everything we can to help to identify the people concerned and ensure that they face due punishment.

May I, first, associate myself entirely with the Prime Minister's comments about the scenes of violence? Those people are not proper football fans, but criminals and thugs and should be treated as such.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be wise not to misunderstand what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is saying. If he is so concerned about matters—[Interruption.] I note that the shadow Chancellor is chortling, but I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said:

"I am not a fan of a single currency"

"I personally am in favour of a single currency".

I am delighted that the Prime Minister keeps asking me questions; it will put him in good practice. Let me make him an offer: instead of the twice weekly Prime Minister's questions, one day a week we will move over to the Government Benches and then the right hon. Gentleman can ask me questions.

The right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman in my own way. He would be better advised to address himself to his own party and his own position. The right hon. Gentleman said in his own election address that he was opposed to British membership of the European Union. Then, later, he actually said:

"I wasn't actually opposed to membership"—

"I said … within the closed doors of the Labour Party, that I disagreed with that policy on Europe."

I think we can see why the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet for a vow of silence on this issue. One simple question remains for him to answer: if he cannot trust his Cabinet or his Chancellor on these critical economic and foreign policy issues, why on earth should the people of Britain trust him or the Government to govern the country?

If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say in public what he said in private, why should anybody trust the Opposition? The Government have made it clear that we will decide in the light of the prevailing circumstances whether it is appropriate to join a single currency. The Cabinet is utterly united on that point and it reinforced that unity this morning, as the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of rail passengers, which were enhanced so much by the Government's recent proposals, will be put at risk by the actions of the rail unions? Does he agree that those very unions are threatening to support clause IV against Opposition reformists, and does he have any confidence that the Leader of the Opposition will renounce those unions?

I really do not know what he will do. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seems very keen to answer questions. I wish that some day he would try it, because if he did, it would be the first time yet in his career. I think that the aim of rail privatisation will undoubtedly be maintained, and it is to improve the quality of rail service. I hope that the need to improve the rail service does not escape the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has been summoned to his sponsoring union, the National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers, to explain why the Opposition want to scrap clause IV.

Childish.

The hon. Gentleman says that that is rubbish. He says that they do not want to scrap clause IV. It is no wonder that he is sitting on the Back Benches.

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

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

Given the unambiguous statements yesterday by the President of the European Commission on European Union internal passport controls and the creation of a single European currency, does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that he expressed in Brussels last July that Jacques Santer is the right man in the right place at the right time?

If the hon. Gentleman reads what the President of the European Commission said yesterday, he will find a whole range of specifically British issues, where we have made it perfectly clear that we wish change and where he has indicated the need for change. To that extent the President of the Commission will prove far more amenable to the British position than any of the alternatives.

In the light of the recent fall in unemployment, is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent CBI survey that showed that exports from small manufacturing companies in this country are at their best level for 10 years? As they appear not to be having any problems with exchange control or exchange rate risks, is there not a further argument for saying that what Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, says about the need for a European single currency by 1997 is undesirable, unrealistic and unnecessary?

I think that, in respect of the first point of my hon. Friend's question, he is quite right to stress the growth in exports. He might have also stressed the extent to which manufacturing exports, in particular, are doing so well, and the fact that manufacturing employment has risen by 37,000 in the quarter to December. That is the fastest quarterly growth in employment in manufacturing at any stage since records began and shows clearly the extent to which manufacturing industry is undergoing a renaissance.

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

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

This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war, in which many of today's British pensioners were involved. Why do our pensioners lag behind the rest of Europe when it comes to pensions and benefits? Why have the Government never considered providing a veterans' benefit, which has been introduced elsewhere in Europe?

I think that the hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the reality of what has happened. He would see that, since 1979, benefits to poorer pensioners have risen by 18 per cent. over and above the increase in prices. He would see that benefits to unemployed couples and others in difficulty have risen dramatically above the rate of inflation.

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

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

When my right hon. Friend is next in touch with Mr. Santer, will he commend him for his words yesterday that, in matters of immigration and asylum, which affect many citizens in their daily lives, the Commission will seek to meet their expectations and to allay their concerns? Will my right hon. Friend tell him that the expectations and concerns of my constituents will best be met by upholding the British border controls that were agreed in Luxembourg 10 years ago?

As I indicated to the House on Tuesday, I am entirely determined to maintain our fair but firm immigration policies, and that means that we shall retain our border controls. European Heads of Government endorsed our right to do so in a formal declaration and we intend to see that it is honoured.

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

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

Even with the small but welcome fall in unemployment, there are still 20,000 long-term unemployed in the Greater Nottingham area. The proposed budget for Greater Nottingham training and enterprise council is such that only 800 or 900 of those 20,000 long-term unemployed can be assisted. Does the Prime Minister think that that is an adequate response to the problems of long-term unemployment?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that long-term unemployment—whether that is defined as six months, one year or longer—is falling and has been falling for a long time. I look forward to seeing it fall a good deal further.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the excellent report of the National Audit Office on grant-maintained schools? If he has, he will have seen that those schools are performing very well indeed. They are providing an excellent standard of education and many thousands of new governors have been drawn into the process of working with teachers and parents to provide good education for our children.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt about the popularity of grant-maintained schools. There is no doubt about the fact that parents who have chosen grant-maintained status are pleased with the choice that they have made, and I think that that choice is exercised among many people, of all political persuasions.

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

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

Given the widespread concern about corruption and bribery in sport and the rumours that games have been thrown for money, will the Prime Minister confirm that his regular poor performances at the Dispatch Box against my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are simply a reflection of his ability and that he has not been bribed by the Labour party?

The expression on the face of the Leader of the Opposition is as expressive as it needs to be and it expresses his view—as mine—of the hon. Gentleman's question.