To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the privatisation of British Rail on the economy of Northern Ireland. [29801]

None.

That is a pathetic answer, but typical. The Minister must be aware of the economic and strategic importance of the line to Stranraer, not only for south-west Scotland but for Northern Ireland. Will he seek some assurances from British Rail that that line will continue if the ill-thought-out privatisation of British Rail goes ahead?

The question of the Stranraer rail link is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we have decided not to carry out an assessment of the impact of rail privatisation for the following reasons: most business between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is road-based, for logistical reasons. We believe that privatisation will result in a more efficient rail system in Great Britain, thereby offering welcome choice for Northern Ireland businesses.

The Minister will be well aware that, even though many cars travel between Larne and Stranraer, a considerable number of foot passengers travel from Belfast to Glasgow and vice versa. They use the line that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and it is an essential line for that reason.

I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the future of the Stranraer rail link is part of the minimum service requirement. It is included in the proposed ScotRail franchise, and that is currently out for consultation. The hon. Gentleman said that foot passengers use the ferry, but only about 1 per cent. of passengers travelling from Northern Ireland ports arrive at those ports by rail, and only about 10 per cent. of passengers travelling from Northern Ireland ports to Great Britain complete their journey by rail.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the economic outlook for the Province. [29802]

The outlook is very encouraging. Employment and output are rising and unemployment is falling. Business confidence and investment intentions are at high levels. New opportunities are opening up for tourism and inward investment, and exports are increasing as our indigenous companies expand. With continuing peace, Northern Ireland's economic prospects are the best that they have been for a generation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland has reached its lowest levels since 1981, that manufacturing output increased by 7 per cent. last year and that exports from Northern Ireland are growing faster than the United Kingdom average? Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement of the proposed £100 million investment in the Province by a major supermarket chain which will bring with it 2,000 new jobs? Finally, I suggest that much of that success is due to the wholly improved atmosphere in Northern Ireland which is due in large part to the initiatives undertaken by my right hon. and learned Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks and I certainly endorse the welcome that he gave to the investment that we are now seeing. I thank him for highlighting the improvements that are occurring in the Northern Ireland economy. It is indicative of how much things have improved that not only has unemployment fallen to its lowest levels since 1981 but also, as of March this year, the number of those in employment has reached a record high. That figure speaks for itself. It is evident that enormous opportunities are available to the people of Northern Ireland in terms of economic growth if peace is sustained and political stability can be achieved. That is what the people of Northern Ireland are asking of their political representatives.

Does the Minister agree that permanent peace will provide a prize in economic terms in which all law-abiding people in Northern Ireland can share? Does he accept that the new investment arising from the successful conferences held in Belfast and Washington, which were promoted by Prime Minister Major and President Clinton, will be of greatest economic benefit if the new jobs created are accessible to both sections of the community so that all can share in the prosperity that follows?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is absolutely right to underline the fact that peace is the key to future growth and prosperity in Northern Ireland. It is not just temporary peace that will achieve that outcome, but confidence that the peace is permanent. At the end of the day, that can be underlined only by the creation of political stability through political agreement.

Does the Minister accept that the economy of Northern Ireland would be boosted considerably if Shorts, as part of the Westland team, were successful in securing the Ministry of Defence's order for attack helicopters with its Apache version? Does the Minister recognise that that would open the way for Starstreak to be used in the United States? Does he accept that the Government should push from within the Cabinet to ensure that the order goes to Westland and that Shorts benefits as a result?

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I agree with what he has said and I assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been talking to the appropriate people in this instance, in particular Commerce Secretary Brown.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position over the peace process. [29803]

We wish to establish beyond doubt that the permanence of peace is truly intended. Therefore, we continue to press Sinn Fein and the loyalist parties alike to address the decommissioning of arms and to continue with exploratory dialogue to that end.

Can the Secretary of State explain what he meant in his letter last week in The Times when he said that the future prospects of Northern Ireland have already been much damaged by the quarrelling among Tory Members of Parliament? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that whoever happens to be elected leader of the Tory party in due course—be it in the first, second or any other ballot—will be committed fully to the peace process and to the framework document? Does he agree that the peace process is far too precious to be sacrificed through Tory quarrelling and civil war in the party ranks?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, very uncharacteristically, is engaging in party political games on a subject that is far too serious for that. Of course everybody in the present Government is fully committed to what has come to be called the peace process, and of course it is the case that instability in the position of any Prime Minister having the commitment demonstrated by my right hon. Friend has a deleterious effect. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. If he does not, he can read my article in The Daily Telegraph today.

No doubt the Secretary of State read his own piece in The Daily Telegraph today, but did he read the report of the release of an IRA prisoner who was found guilty in Germany? Did he read the outrageous remarks made by the judge, who said that prisoner was being released although guilty because of the connotations of the peace process? The judge said also that the Roman Catholic people of Northern Ireland had a desire to bomb their way into a united Ireland and that there was never any religious or civil liberty in Northern Ireland for Roman Catholic people. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something to correct the German authorities about the present situation?

It is important that the true facts about Northern Ireland, its democratic status and the applicability of the rule of law there should always be made clear at home and abroad. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, tempting though it is I do not believe that I should depart from my rule of not commenting on judicial decisions.

Can the Secretary of State assure the House and the people of Northern Ireland that the peace process and political considerations will not be allowed to interfere with the normal operation of the criminal justice system—so that when, as is likely now that we have had peace for some time, witnesses are prepared to come forward and give positive identification in respect of specific criminal acts, the normal processes will be followed? If so, there would be no further repetitions of the reported incident in which a leading member of the IRA identified as the trigger man by a witness was released in breach of normal procedures, simply because the police feared that the Northern Ireland Office would be upset if a major provo were charged.

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, of course. The remaining parts of his question proceed on a number of premises that I do not accept. The Northern Ireland prosecution system, as I recall from the many years that I had responsibility for it, is entirely independent and impartial. The Law Officers of the Crown are there to ensure that it remains so. I am certain that my hon. and learned Friends will do so.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of widespread support for his insistence that the provisionals cannot take part in substantive talks unless there is acceptable progress on decommissioning and for his assertion that substantive talks can start without the involvement of the provisionals?

I gave that assurance. A certain amount of turmoil resulted from a remark that I made when doorstepped a couple of days ago. I have looked at the transcript and it seems entirely orthodox, and in fact rather trite. It was put to me that Mr. McGuinness has said that there was not a snowball's chance in hell of decommissioning until a political settlement had occurred—to which I replied, if that was the case, the political talks process would continue in the absence of Sinn Fein. I cannot believe that anybody in the House wishes that I had replied otherwise.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the peace process cannot be considered meaningfully without taking account of prisoners? I make no apology for raising this matter over and over again. Many believe, as I do, that Private Lee Clegg will be released shortly. If that happens, will the Secretary of State ensure that Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons, who did not kill anyone, will be released forthwith? While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing that, will he consider the question of Irish prisoners in Britain, have them returned to Northern Ireland and look with generosity at the whole question of republican and loyalist prisoners? Some of us, at least in Northern Ireland, could truly say that there but for the grace of God go I, depending on the environment at that time.

The hon. Gentleman raises five or six items, on each of which, perfectly properly, he feels strongly. He cannot expect me to deal with them all.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept an endorsement of his remarks following the death of Senator Gordon Wilson, whose contribution to an end of violence was an example to all people? Will he accept also that although there is reason to be cautiously pessimistic about the continuation of the period of no more deaths since the tragic murder of Frank Kerr of Newry, Gordon Wilson's courage in meeting the IRA, although he thought afterwards that it had been a failure, may have been one of the triggers for success?

I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I think that anyone who knows the family of Senator Gordon Wilson, or even of it, will wish to extend profound sympathy to his widow. He was a wonderful man. He left no avenue unexplored in a search for peace after having demonstrated most extraordinary human qualities following the death of his daughter in Enniskillen.

May I, on behalf of the Opposition, pay tribute to the life and work of Gordon Wilson and offer our condolences to his wife, Jean? My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is not with us this afternoon because he is attending Gordon Wilson's funeral in Enniskillen on behalf of the Opposition.

First, we would like to offer warmest congratulation ns to the hon. Lady on her marriage. It is important in politics, as in marriage, to seek consent and to try to avoid imposition. It is by that simple rubric that both in our marriage and in our politics the Government will proceed.

The House knows how well my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his team have done in carrying forward the peace process. However, should some or all terrorists return to violence, is my right hon. and learned Friend able to assure the House that the security forces are in a position to reinforce as necessary, that their intelligence is up to speed and that they will not be taken by surprise should there be a return to violence?

My hon. Friend raises important questions. I can answer in the affirmative. Nothing that has been done to adjust the security response to the threat since the ceasefires is irreversible. There can be a reverse in a short number of days, and that is important. Of course we want to reach the point when, by actions as well as words, we can be confident that the permanence of peace is what is truly intended.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new proposals he has to legislate for human rights in Northern Ireland. [29804]

It is my intention that legislation on the general lines of the Race Relations Act 1976 should be introduced in Northern Ireland. We will also be considering, in the context of the talks process, how civil, political, social and cultural rights might best be further protected.

I am grateful for that answer. May I urge on the Secretary of State that he and his Department give careful thought to the possibility of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which could go some way to reassure all sections of the community that in the future, whatever that holds, civil and human rights will be preserved and enhanced?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has long taken close interest in these matters. We have said for a long time that we would be prepared to enhance protection for human rights in Northern Ireland. There is obviously a passage in each of the framework documents that bears upon that. If all the parties were to agree that the best means of such protection were a Bill of Rights, the Government would obviously take account of that view in the light of prevailing circumstances. At this juncture, we would not wish to rule anything out or in.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important human right of all is the right to life? Is not it remarkable that there has been freedom for such a long time from sectarian killing and destruction in Northern Ireland, a situation that many people thought would never happen? Is not that due in large measure to the brilliant negotiating skills of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

I very warmly endorse what my hon. Friend has just said. I do not believe that any body of opinion in Northern Ireland would disagree with what he has said, both as to the Prime Minister's skill, and certainly his commitment, and as to the level of surprise that what has come about in the past 10 months has occasioned. The right to life is the most fundamental human right of all, and one must always continue to stress that, not least when discussing the activities of people who presume to impose punishment without charge, without trial and without appeal.

Will the Secretary of State confirm for the record that the Ulster Unionist party tabled specific and detailed proposals for a Bill of Rights at the very start of the 1992 inter-party talks and was the only party to do so, but that neither the Irish Government nor the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party showed any interest in discussing those proposals?

First, I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's party did introduce substantial proposals for a Bill of Rights. I readily acknowledge that. The question of a Bill of Rights gives rise to an interesting debate, which is not all one way but, as I said, and I now repeat, if everyone agrees upon it, that will obviously weigh heavily with the Government.

I associate myself with the remarks about Senator Gordon Wilson, who was a friend and a colleague and someone for whom I had enormous respect. That is also the view of my colleagues.

Of course I will. I have no intention of overruling, nor have I any jurisdiction to overrule, the decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal, or the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman is confusing that notion with the concept of the jurisdiction that Parliament has conferred upon the holder of my office—as it has conferred it on the Home Secretary in Great Britain—to deal with the question of whether a sentence for life should mean for the whole of someone's natural life or not. I imagine that there are many people in prison of whom the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge—though very little sympathy, I feel sure—whom he would not wish to see languish in prison for the rest of their natural lives simply because that is the character of the sentence that has been imposed upon them. He can be perfectly certain that any individual case that falls within my jurisdiction will be dealt with in the best way that seems to me to accord with the rule of law and the jurisdiction conferred upon me by Parliament.

In view of the breadth of the issues that have been raised in the House this afternoon, and the strength of feeling about decommissioning and prisoners, would the Secretary of State give a commitment to the House to bring those matters up in his discussions with the Tanaiste tomorrow and tell the House a little more about the nature of the study group set up with Dublin following the Cannes meeting earlier in the week?

The proceedings of intergovernmental conferences are always confidential and I think that it is right that they should remain confidential. It is very important that the two Governments, who have now established a long practice and experience of talking freely and frankly with each other, should be able to do so in circumstances of confidentiality. Most things that are relevant to the jurisdiction of each Government get discussed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for future relations between grammar schools and education and library boards. [29805]

The Government have proposed that the recurrent funding of voluntary grammar schools in Northern Ireland should in future be undertaken by the education and library boards. No change is proposed to the governance of these schools, which will remain under the sole management of their boards of governors. Representations on these proposals have been received and will now be carefully considered before any final decisions are reached.

Does the Minister accept that some people on the governing bodies of the grammar schools are concerned that the relationship that they have had with the Department may alter, especially in the light of those grammar schools which are already controlled by the boards? When a board, in the case of, for example, Wellington college, recommends a major modernisation, the Department sets it aside and cannot even yet tell us when it will get the funding to upgrade that school's premises.

I have had representations from a number of quarters, including representatives of the Governing Bodies Association and from far further afield. I will wish to take full account of those representations including, I should add, representations from the hon. Gentleman's party, which supported the proposals. I wish to take all those representations away and give them the fullest consideration. In the proposals, we were seeking an administrative simplification of the system, not to alter any of the relationships in terms of control. Were I, following my consideration of the representations, to think that the proposals were going further than intended, I would take it into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his current assessment of potential inward investment to Northern Ireland. [29806]

The climate for investment in Northern Ireland from overseas has been greatly enhanced by a sustained absence of violence. It is expected that a continuation of peace will result in an increased flow of inward investment.

I thank the Minister for his reply but, in the context of his earlier reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), is he not deeply concerned about the gross inequality in the distribution of job creation in Northern Ireland? The southern part of Northern Ireland has been neglected by inward investment projects. He will be aware that, for the years 1990 to 1995, 39 projects were created, but none in my constituency of South Down; in fact, only 3 per cent. of the inward investment visits of the past 10 years have come to South Down. Will the Minister take direct action to redress that inequality through a new inward investment strategy, allied perhaps to a decentralisation of jobs from Government Departments to the more rural areas?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for that particular aspect, but I shall certainly ensure that Lady Denton is made aware of his remarks. He will have heard me say that it is very much the intention of the Government to ensure that the benefits in terms of inward investment which will, we hope, flow from a sustained peace will be shared by all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. That deals with the sort of points that he raised.

Surely the Minister can understand the feelings of a number of hon. Members considering the inequality of the distribution of prosperity and jobs, bearing in mind the fact that very little has been directed towards the likes of Mid-Ulster. Prosperity and jobs have been directed to the Foyle constituency or to Belfast, West, to the neglect of Belfast, East and the constituency that I have the privilege to represent. Surely there should be proper equality of distribution. Bearing in mind the shots that were fired in Downpatrick last night, does the Minister agree that it is only with a clear renunciation of violence and the proper decommissioning of weapons that we shall make real progress in the Province?

The hon. Gentleman has already heard what I had to say about the importance of peace in terms of achieving the type of inward investment that we want. I hear what he says and he has heard what I have to say about trying to ensure that the benefits of peace are enjoyed across the community. Clearly, in terms of inward investment, there has to be some recognition of the fact that those coming to invest will be attracted to certain areas. The job of the Government is to ensure that, as far as possible, the areas that require investment are given sufficient exposition to make them attractive to investors.

Does the Minister agree that, although inward investment in the retail industry is welcome in that it increases choice, what Northern Ireland really needs is more investment in manufacturing industry? Will he therefore support the efforts made recently in Washington and at the earlier conference in Belfast to ensure a significant increase in investment in manufacturing industry, not only from the United States but from Great Britain and further afield?

We are as aware of the importance of trying to attract manufacturing industry, with its export potential, as of the other basic industry which is clearly going to flourish—tourism. There has to be a balance to ensure that the benefits of the prosperity that can be achieved through peace are spread as widely as possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that inward investment in Northern Ireland is greatly encouraged by the fact that we have not signed up to the social chapter or the minimum wage?

I could not have put it better myself.

Does the Minister agree that job retention and job creation are a crucial part of economic development in Northern Ireland? In that context, is he aware that the recent round of compulsory competitive tendering in the Down Lisburn health and social services trust resulted in the loss of 55 jobs and that more than 80 per cent. of those affected were women? That is a pattern repeated in trusts all over Northern Ireland and is a direct result of the Government's policies. Is the Minister aware that we have recently been advised that the policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines, which are intended to ensure that departmental policies have no adverse impact on, among other things, one gender as compared to another, do not apply to market testing in the health service? Does he accept that it does not help—

Order. The question is about inward investment. Will the hon. Gentleman relate his question more to inward investment, which is what it is all about?

Does the Minister accept that it does not help inward investment policy for the Government to be seen to be ignoring their own PAFT guidelines?

I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's question to inward investment, so I can reply only that the inward investment in health goes to patients, to ensure that they get the best care possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Government policy on, and progress towards, integrated education in Northern Ireland. [29807]

The Government remain fully committed to supporting the development of integrated education and have recently approved proposals for a further four grant-maintained integrated schools. In addition, I have approved a proposal for an existing controlled primary school to become a controlled integrated school from next September. That brings to 28 the total number of integrated schools in Northern Ireland.

The Minister will be aware that a survey showed that only 12 per cent. of Catholic and Protestant students at Queen's university had friends from the other community. However, the figure for Lagan college is 44 per cent. That makes a solid case for integrated education. I am pleased to hear about the measures that the Minister has mentioned, but is there not a case for turning mobile provision into permanent schools and for adding to capital investment in new schools?

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. Before the Minister answers, may I ask that conversations be a little less noisy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well to say, "Hear, hear," but you are all having very loud conversations.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for Government policy. We have long recognised the important role that integrated education can play in bringing the two parts of the community together. Indeed, in the schools that I mentioned in my answer about 5,000 pupils are now involved in integrated education. At the moment, the impetus comes largely from new integrated schools being set up, but the Government want to encourage existing schools to become integrated. I was delighted to be able to announce in my answer that that had happened recently with one primary school—it is in Portaferry—and I hope that there will be many more such schools.

I commend the Government on their work in that important area and encourage them to press on. Is the Minister aware of the 1991 report that says that children who attend such schools are unlikely to become involved with paramilitary organisations when they leave?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is no doubt that the more that children from both parts of the community are encouraged to get together at an early age, not only through integrated education but through other policies such as education for mutual understanding, the less likely they are in future to succumb to the sort of divisions to which their parents have succumbed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to make a start on restoring accountable democracy to the people of Northern Ireland. [29808]

Our aim is to strengthen accountable democracy through local institutions allowing all elected political representatives to exercise local responsibility and accountability—the sooner the better. But that should take place on a basis that has first been agreed through political dialogue involving the main Northern Ireland parties.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order.

I am reluctant to interrupt the conversations to which you referred earlier, Madam Speaker, but perhaps I have your permission to do so. [Interruption.]

Order. Come along now, let us have some order in the House. It is all very well hon. Members giving me their support when I ask for order, but it does not happen.

I am indebted to you, Madam Speaker.

That would be well deserved indeed, but it must be done on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman and the other parties—[interruption.] I knew that that would receive approval. It must be done on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman and the leaders of the other parties have agreed; otherwise, if I seek to impose it, it will not stick. So I welcome the evidence that the right hon. Gentleman and the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party are beginning to come together.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the decommissioning of arms and explosives held by paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. [29809]

The Government have made clear the practical necessity for progress in the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in order to build an adequate foundation of trust and confidence for inclusive political talks. The exploratory dialogue continues to provide the right forum in which to discuss these issues.

I am grateful for that robust response. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will continue to be guided by the three-point plan which his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State outlined in his Washington speech? The three points are that there will be clear agreement on the principle of decommissioning, that there will be agreement on the means by which that decommissioning will be achieved and that there will be practical evidence that the decommissioning is under way.

I am glad to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. I can assure the House that the Government have no intention of departing from those three conditions.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29831]

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.

The President of the Board of Trade said on radio yesterday that the Prime Minister consulted him about his barmy decision to hold a leadership lollipop scramble. Is that correct? If it is correct, is it not rather like inviting Lucrezia Borgia to provide the wine at the party?

The fact is that I informed my right hon. Friend.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the absolute horror with which the one third of the north-east's GPs who are currently budget holders will greet Labour's proposals? Do not the proposals show that the Labour party is completely against any form of success and innovation?

I agree with my hon. Friend about that. Everyone in the House wishes to ensure that the national health service is successful, and that it can continually provide a better service and treat more patients. I do not believe that the proposals introduced by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the Opposition spokesman on health, will achieve that.

"There have been enormous changes in the NHS reorganisations and Labour should be wary of threatening more wholesale organisational change."

As we now know that the former Secretary of State for Wales strongly disagreed with the whole direction of Government policy, should he not have resigned from the Cabinet a long time ago, irrespective of the leadership issue? If that is right, should not the present members of the Government who, we well know, agree with the former Secretary of State for Wales also resign?

The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) resigned from the Cabinet because he was devastated that I had resigned as leader of the Conservative party.

I wonder whether that is the view of all the members of the Cabinet; I rather doubt it. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying that the leadership election would clear the air? Surely all that has become clear is the divisions, the hatred and the anarchy that exist within his party. Is it not the case now that whoever leads the Conservative party will, in effect, lead not one party, but two? Those divisions can never be reconciled.

The right hon. Gentleman certainly has a cheek, since 40 per cent. of his party voted against him when he was elected leader recently. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, said 1 million. I did not realise that a million people voted against the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps they did.

To be serious, does the Prime Minister agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the leadership contest is that it is distracting attention from the remarkable technical and engineering achievement of the reopening tomorrow, only three weeks after a devastating fire, of Southend pier? Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a spirit of unity, prepared to congratulate the Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative councillors of Southend-on-Sea, who have worked in the spirit of the battle of Britain to restore one of Britain's great national assets?

I enjoy the odd battle myself, so I am entirely happy to congratulate my hon. Friend and all those whom he mentioned on the success at Southend pier. It is amazing what can be done under good government.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29832]

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

Will the Prime Minister tell us what word he would legitimately use to describe those Cabinet Ministers who, while professing loyalty to him, are setting up telephone lines in campaign offices for the second round of the election?

I have no knowledge of that. I can say that the speed at which these matters can be done is a tribute to privatisation.

Mr. Julian Brazier.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. This is great fun.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why it is that, of the 10 cases considered earlier this month by the Northern Ireland review board, nine, including a number of former IRA and Ulster Defence Association terrorists, have now been told the outcome of their review at least in outline? Why has Private Lee Clegg alone not been told the outcome of his review and when is he likely to be told?

Any decision in the case of Private Clegg, first, will be reached as soon as possible and, secondly, will be advised to Private Clegg before any further statement is made.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29833]

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

If the Prime Minister is so keen to avoid prejudging the outcome of the Scott inquiry, why does he keep suggesting that he and his colleagues, including the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have no case to answer? Is it not now time to put up or shut up?

I set up the Scott inquiry and I have made the point repeatedly that I will consider the Scott inquiry when it has reported. I have no intention of being tempted down the route that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29834]

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

May I ask my right hon. Friend, to whose support as leader of our party I am fully committed, and before the long years that lie ahead in which he should have ample time to give me a job, whether, in view of Chancellor Kohl's ardent, continued support for a single currency or a core currency, both of which would of course be dominated by Germany, my right hon. Friend will ensure that, as leader of any Government whom he heads, no decision will be taken to join either of those organisations until the British people have been given an opportunity to say whether they regard it as being in their long-term interest by means of a referendum?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's offer of support, which has been made both publicly and privately, and I welcome that.

What about a job?

Order.

On a referendum, let me set out the position for the House. The first thing of course would be for the Cabinet to determine whether the country should enter into a single currency. If the Cabinet decides that it does not believe that it is right to enter into a single currency, the question of a referendum does not arise, although, as I have said in the past, were the Cabinet to decide that it did wish to proceed, as my hon. Friend says, there would be a serious question to be asked about a referendum. I repeat what I have said in the House before: I do not propose to rule one out.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29835]

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

In the course of his busy day, has the Prime Minister had a chance to consider the Employment Select Committee report on the pay and remuneration of people in the gas, electricity and water, now privatised, utilities? Is that not a disgraceful example of greed, and is it not high time that he took action to curb those pay increases, or is it that perhaps he is looking, if the worst comes to the worst, to move to the City with a pay increase?

I have no intention of responding at all to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, which, knowing him, he may come to regret in due course.

Can my right hon. Friend find time to consider the remarkable similarity between Henry Ford and the new model Labour party? He may recall that Henry Ford said that one could have any colour for one's car, provided it was black. The new-look modern Labour party says that one may have any candidate one wants, provided she is female, particularly if she happens to be the chairwoman of Lancashire county council.

There is, of course, in addition to those similarities, one difference, I suggest to my hon. Friend: persistently, Henry Ford tended to win.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29836]

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

In the light of the recent local and by-election results, what advice would the Prime Minister give to those Conservative Members who try to get mortgage protection insurance, only to be told that their future career prospects are so uncertain as to be uninsurable? Has the Prime Minister tried to get such insurance lately?

No, I have not, nor do I need it.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the time under the last socialist Government when Britain was regarded as the sick man of Europe and we could take only £50 on each trip abroad? Does he agree that the Government should retain the influence of this country in the rest of the world and not close off any options in relation to Europe or elsewhere before we need to do so?

I certainly recall the time when we could take only £50 abroad on holiday under the last Labour Government. Of course, that point is not that relevant because under the last Labour Government very few people had £50.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29837]

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

When speaking to Tory party chairmen recently, the Prime Minister resorted to the language of Gerald Ratner in describing the processes of the European Union. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and the Tory Government are also trying to sell cheap and tawdry products to the British people? At the next general election, under whatever Tory leader, the Tories will pay the same price as Gerald Ratner.

I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to a private remark that appeared to have been bugged by the BBC at some stage over the weekend. I have learnt that, from time to time, one mike can be left on by mistake. However, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he take no notice of that. He should concentrate on the fact that under this Government the changes that we have seen in prospects and prosperity for the future are greater than any that we have seen for many years. Not within his adult lifetime has this country ever faced the benign economic prospect for the future that we can today honestly offer the British people.

Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

May I thank the Leader of the House for that information on future business as far as he knows it? On this somewhat momentous day, will he join me in asking you, Madam Speaker, as the first woman to occupy your position, to send a message of congratulations on our behalf to Lisa Clayton, the first British woman to complete a lone, non-stop, around-the-world voyage in her boat, the Spirit of Birmingham?

I think that I can deal with all that relatively easily. First, on the hon. Lady's initial request that you, Madam Speaker, should convey the congratulations of the House to Lisa Clayton, I am sure that that would command unanimous support. As far as the rest of her questions are concerned, I shall say simply this. I understand why she felt that she had to ask them, but they are pretty silly questions and I do not intend to answer them.

May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1267 on the prosecution of British paedophile tourists, which has been signed by at least 140 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House and is likely to acquire further signatures in the next few days and weeks?

My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the Government share his concern about the activities of western tourists travelling overseas to procure child prostitutes and are considering whether effective measures could be taken to tackle that problem. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will look carefully at both the suggestions in the early-day motion and the remarks that my right hon. Friend made.

First, will the Leader of the House confirm that the 16th and 17th Opposition Supply days that he announced will give him an opportunity to allow my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats to choose the subject for one of those two days, as it is now time that a Supply day was allocated to one of the minority parties? Secondly, will he look at the possibility of bringing forward at an early date a by-election writ to fill the vacancy in Littleborough and Saddleworth? If that is not done before the summer recess, it will leave electors in that constituency unrepresented for an untoward period of time. Thirdly, will he look at early-day motion 1258 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)?

The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the last matter that he raised is for discussion through the usual channels and I am sure that he is pursuing that. The second matter is clearly not for me to discuss on the Floor of the House, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of those who may be concerned with moving the writ. On his first question, the answer is yes. My only doubt is how those two days will be allocated among the various Opposition parties.

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1322, in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and a number of other less significant Members of Parliament, seeking the dissolution of Parliament?

My hon. Friend uses very direct language. Although I am accustomed to putting matters in a more circumlocutory way, I agree with him.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1300?

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have a great deal of sympathy with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I draw his attention to the fact that I announced Northern Ireland business for next week, including a motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order, when it may be possible for him to make some of those points. On the first part of his remarks, I am sure that the whole House will join him in supporting the call expressed in the early-day motion for the return of the remains of those abducted and killed by terrorists to their loved ones.

May we have a debate next week on the organisation and financing of local government, so that I can bring before the House the resentment of my constituents in Ealing, North at Ealing Labour council's sacking of teachers, home helps and other people with essential jobs in the community, while it has some £39 million in the kitty for other purposes? My constituents bitterly resent that and the House should know how Labour is behaving in local government in Ealing.

There is of course a debate in the House tomorrow on the conduct of local government and, in the light of what my hon. Friend said, I would hope that he might seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.

I speak as a signatory of early-day motion 1322, and as one who has, I should think, made a far more significant contribution to democracy than the rather elderly hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant). Why does not the Leader of the House get the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House about the current rabble, called a leadership election? Does he not agree that the British people have a right to elect their Prime Minister through the ballot box, rather than leave it to a handful of people in this place, who simply want to save their own skins at the next election?

I am quite astonished that the hon. Lady should have the nerve to make that point in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said, who recalled precisely what happened when the Labour party changed its leadership in 1976.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate soon on housing, so that we can learn more about the Government's excellent proposals to bring much-needed private enterprise into Labour-dominated council estates?

I shall certainly bear that suggestion in mind, not least in view of the excellent proposals in the Government's White Paper.

Will the Leader of the House arrange business in such a way next Tuesday, the date of the Tory leadership ballot, so that when that ballot finishes at 5 o'clock, the Division Lobbies will be made available, and those voting for the Prime Minister can go into one Lobby and the others voting for the ex-Secretary of State can go into the No Lobby? The British people would then be able to see exactly who had voted for whom; the deceit would end and everybody would know the identity of the abstainers. There would be no secret ballot and the process would be much cleaner than the current hole-in-the-corner method, by which Tory Members of Parliament are telling journalists and others that they will vote for both candidates and have not got the guts to tell the British people what they are going to do.

Coming from the party with the trade union block vote, that is just amazing.

May I say that all hon. Members condemn agism, which is politically incorrect? The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) should be ashamed of herself.

I feel that the Lord President is unaware that the Labour party at least records the votes cast by Members of Parliament when deciding a leadership election, so that everyone knows exactly how we vote. Perhaps he ought to consider that method as a possibility for his party.

If the standard of questions reflects the standard of government that we would have were the Labour party to achieve its ambitions, the prospect facing the country is indeed a depressing one.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on financial responsibility in the administration of the national parks, following the announcement last week that the Peak District national park is to buy the shooting rights to 1,000 acres of moorland at an estimated cost of £40,000, not for conservation reasons, but simply to stop shooting taking place there in future? Is not that an appalling misuse of public funds and taxpayers' money, and may we have an early debate on the matter?

While I cannot promise an early debate, especially as we have just had two days on the Environment Bill, including provisions relating to national parks, I certainly hope that those at whom my hon. Friend's remarks are directed will take note of them.

May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1030?

I think that the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in that matter is long established and understandable, is aware that implementation of the directive was an obligation on the United Kingdom, and obviously that has been a factor in that.

Will the Leader of the House say whether the Government will make a statement on their response to the consultation document about the disposal of waste from the nuclear industry, especially the ludicrous suggestion that low-level waste from that industry should be tipped on public refuse tips, in particular the Beighton tip in my constituency, which has caused 10,000 of my constituents to sign a petition opposing that proposal? Will the Government give a clear idea of when a statement will be made and say that they will drop the nonsense of waste from the nuclear industry being put on to public refuse tips?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact date at the moment, but I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will make the position clear in the light of the consultation as soon as possible.

It is highly unlikely that in the next couple of weeks Lord Donaldson's assessment will be concluded and the response to it given. In view of the fact that the House will go into recess shortly, will the Leader of the House approach the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that, when the recess ends, he will come to the House at an early date to make an statement on the results of Lord Donaldson's assessment of the MV Derbyshire?

Of course I will, in the usual way that I respond to the hon. Gentleman on that matter, ensure that that request is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about the movement of nuclear materials and public safety?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the rigour of the arrangements and various ways to ensure the safety of anything connected with the nuclear industry in this country is considerable. I am sure that, in the light of the incident that he described, the matter will be very carefully examined by my right hon. Friends.

People are interested in the poor condition of our electoral registers only when a general election is on top of us. As we are now in a position of political instability and we do not know what will happen in the future—whether, for instance, we might be moving into a general election some time soon—should we not have an urgent debate, before the House rises on 21 July, about electoral registration, which is in a bad state and should interest us all?

There will be an opportunity before too long to have what is now the usual three-hour Adjournment debate on the Wednesday before the recess, and I shall note that the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that subject then.

Is it not a matter of urgent necessity that we debate early-day motion 1248?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with his description of the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I certainly do not. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend referred to the matter following his statement yesterday. He made it clear that the French Government have reaffirmed their commitment to the goal of a comprehensive test ban treaty, which is very much the aim of the British Government.

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), can we have an early debate on the shambles of the Government's law and order policy in the light of this week's statement by the chief constable of Warwickshire police that the police will need to charge those who make calls to the police for any attendance by police officers if the £6.5 million deficit in the police budget is not dealt with this year? That constabulary will lose 50 officers in the course of the year and it is therefore essential that the Government respond urgently to that problem.

Happily, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has now arrived in the Chamber and has heard the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am spared the task of drawing them to his attention. I am sure that he will have taken note of them.

Will the Leader of the House study the remarks of the former Welsh Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), several weeks ago when he said that the Prime Minister was building on the legacy of his predecessor? In view of that, could he arrange a debate, to start at 6 o'clock on Tuesday, about the legacy of Thatcherism?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and all Conservative Members have been steadily developing Conservative policies for some 16 years. The success of those policies—particularly in relation to industry and the economy—is, as my right hon. Friend said a few moments ago, increasingly and very clear.