To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the funding of action for community employment. [9626]

Many representations have been received from the voluntary sector and others concerning the reduction in next year's ACE budget. Unemployment, while still a problem, is no longer the major problem that it was when ACE was introduced and the need to fund temporary jobs has diminished with the improving economic situation. During the 12 months to September 1995, almost 11,000 new jobs have been created in Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland Office has a policy of targeting social need, but the decision to cut ACE so savagely flies in the face of that principle. How does the Minister justify that decision? More importantly, will he now reverse it? That would be welcomed in both communities and by all political parties. There must be money somewhere in the Northern Ireland Office budget which would allow him to take such a principled step.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am sure that he would agree that it is necessary to reflect changing circumstances when deciding how to allocate resources to maximum benefit. There have been many substantial changes in economic circumstances since the early 1980s when the programme was introduced. That was at a time of very high and rising unemployment, which has now fallen to its lowest level in 14 years. Long-term unemployment has fallen by more than 5,000 and there are 7,500 job vacancies, which is a record level. That suggests that it is right that resources should now be allocated to promote the growth which exists within the Northern Ireland economy and which can provide real long-term and lasting jobs.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on his question and draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 273, which I am pleased to say had the support of all the Northern Ireland political parties and many other parties in the House. The suddenness of the proposed cuts will have a devastating effect on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society, who often live in areas where there is high unemployment and social deprivation. We are concerned that some of the charities that are dependent on ACE workers may be forced to close. Again, the disabled in particular could be further disadvantaged. I appeal to the Minister to undertake to review the damage that is being done. The fact that those who have given commitments are demoralized—

Order. I regret to have to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but he is making a statement. I have not yet heard him put a question to the Minister.

May I ask and appeal to the Minister to review the funding to ACE with a view to increasing resources?

I cannot give that undertaking—nor, I suspect would the hon. Gentleman expect me to. However, it has been made clear to ACE providers that they are best placed to decide how to manage the reduction and they have flexibility to ensure that key posts of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred are not left unfilled. Real jobs are what all of us involved in Northern Ireland should be looking for, particularly in growth areas such as tourism. Substantial additional resources have been allocated to the growing tourist industry, especially for training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the emphasis being put on training people within the growth areas in the Northern Ireland economy to take on real and long-lasting jobs. That must be our joint objective.

May I thank my hon. Friend for his first answer and welcome the improvement in the economic situation, which is partly the result of the peace process and partly due to the fact that this country has not signed the social chapter and is not committed to a national minimum wage which would destroy jobs in Northern Ireland as it would elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which will be accepted by all those who work in the Northern Ireland economy. His point is valid. Peace and the lack of a social chapter have indeed helped to promote economic prospects in Northern Ireland. We are trying to make sure that those prospects are even more enhanced by ensuring that resources are spent in the right areas.

From the replies so far, the Minister appears not to understand the problem being created by the 25 per cent. immediate cut in the budget of the Training and Employment Agency. That 25 per cent. has been translated into cuts of 30 per cent. in the south-east and 15 per cent. elsewhere. When that decision was made, was the Minister aware that it would impact on the elderly, the aged and the sick, and on training in areas where there is no employment, such as the training given by ACE? That will have serious social consequences. If the Minister is not prepared to review that decision, will he provide further finance through the Department of Health and Social Services to replace those services?

If the hon. Gentleman will write to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is responsible for health and social services, I am sure that my hon. Friend will respond. Indeed, my hon. Friend will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The reduction is not an abandonment of the programme. It was made because it was felt that at this point in the economic circumstances of Northern Ireland resources could be better applied in ways that would create real and lasting jobs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other Northern Ireland Members would criticise the Government if we did not seek to promote the growth that now exists in Northern Ireland.

I accept that unemployment has fallen, but in Northern Ireland it is still more than 11 per cent. The key figure is that 55 per cent. have been out of work for more than a year. With the fragility—

Order. I must instruct the House that this is Question Time and not the time to make statements. We must have questions to Ministers. We have been going for nearly 10 minutes and we have not yet finished question No. 1. I want questions to Ministers and brief answers to them.

In view of the fragility of the Northern Ireland economy, as evidenced by the problems at Shorts, does the Minister consider that the decision to cut ACE funding is at least premature? Should he not redirect—or restore—that finance to the long-term unemployed?

I shall be as brief as I can, Madam Speaker. That is exactly what the Government seek to do in promoting growth in the Northern Ireland economy. I re-emphasise that unfilled job vacancies are running at record levels—a situation on which I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate the Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in respect of the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in Northern Ireland. [9627]

No illegal arms or explosives have yet been decommissioned by any paramilitary organisation. That is deplorable. The international body said that total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations must continue to be a principal objective. It recommended the acceptance of that as a principle. We accepted it at once with all the other recommendations in the report. All others should now do the same.

Is it not a fact that decommissioning remains an option? If some arms were decommissioned even now, we could progress to all-party talks, which might still be the best way forward. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Mitchell report showed that the only obstacle to decommissioning is the mind set of Sinn Fein and the IRA?

It is, indeed, an option. It is more than an option—it is a duty. I believe that if that option were taken and that duty fulfilled we could proceed to all-party negotiations, which is the objective of everyone, in a very short time indeed. I hope very much, in the light of the report, that that course will now he taken.

As Sinn Fein-IRA appear unable to rehabilitate themselves to the normality of democratic politics and summarily reject accommodations offered by the Government, the Ulster Unionists and now the Mitchell Commission and, in defiance of 83 per cent. of society in Northern Ireland—which includes 75 per cent. of Social Democratic and Labour party supporters—refuse to decommission a single gun, is it not depressing to find Tanaiste Dick Spring and the leader of the SDLP whingeing and whining about the Government's latest offer to establish a mandated forum which might advance progress towards peace?

It is important that Sinn Fein and other parties associated with the paramilitary organisations should be pressed to say whether they accept the principles recommended by the report—especially the second of those principles, which is total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.. On the proposal for an election, it is worth reminding the House that in the communiqué at the end of November setting up the political and disarmament tracks the two Governments expressly envisaged that in preparatory and political talks the question of what part an elected body might play would be specifically mentioned. So it is not some new idea summoned out of the ether in the past minute or two. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, it represents a way by which the necessary confidence can be achieved and I hope that it will receive careful consideration.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the principle that there can be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door if lasting peace is to be established in Northern Ireland? Has he carefully studied the recent poll, which showed that 83 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland demand the removal of all terrorist weapons from the equation? What steps will he take to press the Dublin Government to act on the known arms dumps in the Irish Republic, which were created prior to the IRA ceasefire?

I am confident that the Irish Government are as anxious to discover illegal arms dumps as the British Government are—and that is very anxious indeed. I have studied the report and agree that it is extremely important that public opinion is shown to be in line with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, and in line with support for an elective process to play a part in our current problems. That should give reassurance.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that both the Irish and British Governments jointly appointed the Mitchell Commission to give an objective assessment on how the decommissioning issue would be dealt with? His Government have now rejected the Mitchell report's central recommendation in paragraph 34 and have unilaterally and shamelessly moved away and reneged on the agreement with the Irish Government to pursue the matter through all-party talks in the twin-track approach. How will decommissioning be tackled now that the Secretary of State has sacrificed potential consensus for expediency within this House?

I am afraid that I am not with the hon. Gentleman on any of that. The Government have not rejected the Mitchell report but have welcomed it. We immediately adopted all the recommendations of principle that it put forward. We welcome especially the report's identification of confidence as the central requirement. All-party negotiations could begin in fulfilment of the Government's aim by the end of February, provided that a start is made on decommissioning. If that does not happen—and we are told that it will not—it is the duty of Governments to see whether confidence can be engendered in some other way. I want that issue urgently debated in the twin-track process. That is what is suggested.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although everyone in the House hopes for the day when all parties in Northern Ireland will seek the path of peace and sign up to the six points of principle laid out in the recent report, such declarations count for nothing in practice until the people holding arms give them up? Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to call for all parties to give up arms now—not just to make declarations, but actually to hand the arms over?

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says. Putting it in a cliché, actions speak louder than words. That was put in slightly different language by the Mitchell report, when it said that if those principles, which include the total disarmament of all paramilitary arms, were adopted and honoured, there would be a tremendous accretion of confidence and progress. I very much agree with that.

Continuing our bipartisan approach, may I joint the Secretary of State in welcoming the report of Senator Mitchell and his colleagues? Yesterday, discussing the report, Members on both sides of the House emphasised the need for trust and confidence. Today there is a worrying air of distrust and a lack of confidence among some Members of the House and among some communities in Northern Ireland. To help to allay some of those fears, can the Secretary of State confirm to the House today that he will consider all options proposed to take the process forward, including making a start on decommissioning, and that movement towards an elective process, in line with paragraph 56 of the Mitchell report, will go ahead only with the widespread agreement of the parties in Northern Ireland?

We have always made it clear that there can be no imposition if any solution that is proposed is to stick. I make that clear again.

"Elections held in accordance with democratic principles express and reflect the popular will."

"If it were broadly acceptable, with an appropriate mandate, and within the"—

"structure, an elective process could contribute to the building of confidence."

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from health and social services boards and health and social services trusts on the financial proposals for next year and the impact on services. [9628]

Boards, trusts and agencies were asked for their views. These have now been received and I am considering them carefully. I shall also be meeting board and trust chairmen in the next two weeks. I hope to make an announcement as soon as possible after that time.

I thank the Minister for that response. Does he accept that a 3 per cent. up-front saving would have an impact on health provision in the Province, especially coming after years of taking the fat out of the system? Does the Minister acknowledge that it may lead to increases in waiting lists, especially as elective surgery may be targeted?

The 3 per cent. efficiency saving that we are asking the boards to consider this year is similar to the percentage amount that they have been saving in previous years, and I have no reason at this stage to doubt that they can do so again. However, until I have read their submissions I cannot determine whether any cuts in services will occur.

Is Northern Ireland getting its fair share of health resources from the central Exchequer to look after health services? Has my hon. Friend had a chance to compare the amount of money from the central Exchequer given to health services in Northern Ireland with the amount given in the south, and to discover whether there is a flow of people from the south trying to take advantage of any difference?

I have no comment to make on comparisons with the Republic of Ireland. I believe that in the past decade people in Northern Ireland have enjoyed a greater than average per capita spend on health. I am delighted to report to the House that, despite a reasonably tight public expenditure round, the total resources to be spent on health in the coming year will increase in real terms compared with last year.

The Secretary of State and the Minister will be aware of the McKenna report on the rationalisation of services between the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospitals trust and the Belfast City hospital trust, and they will know that the report contains a proposal to close the Royal Maternity hospital. Is the Minister aware that there is great anger among my constituents—both Catholic and Protestant people of west and north Belfast—that such a proposal is being made, bearing in mind that the Royal Maternity hospital contains a neo-natal unit which serves not only Belfast, but the whole north of Ireland?

I am well aware of the contentious nature of the proposals in Dr. McKenna's report, but that is the third tranche of proposals. Most of the proposals in the other two reports have been agreed internally by consultants. The whole report is out to consultation and no decisions have been taken. It is important for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the truth of the matter, which is that two maternity units are to amalgamate—we are not closing one.

Is the Minister aware that the current position in acute care in Northern Ireland is already intolerable and that he has succeeded in uniting all shades of political opinion against the Government's stewardship? Does he agree with the recent statement of the chairman of the British Medical Association's Northern Ireland council that the Government have

"withdrawn beds to such an extent that we've reached a critical point"?

I do not agree with the statement by the BMA spokesperson and I do not believe that there is a crisis in acute bed provision in Northern Ireland. If there are shortages in individual hospitals, I shall ask for an immediate report on them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional measures are being taken in response to the recent murders attributed to the Direct Action Against Drugs organisation. [9629]

While operational policing is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I can state that in mid-December last year a team of detectives, headed by a chief superintendent, was formed to investigate murders which have been claimed by a group calling itself Direct Action Against Drugs; there have been seven murders procured by the provisional IRA under that flag of convenience. The RUC team has all the resources that it requires.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of what he has just said—and of the Mitchell Commission's recommendations announced yesterday that punishment killings should cease immediately—it behoves IRA-Sinn Fein not just to condemn the recent killings, but to take direct action to prevent further murders?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Mitchell report noted that the key to progress is confidence. My hon. Friend is right when he questions how people can have confidence when the provisional IRA is beating and murdering people and Sinn Fein refuses to condemn that. An important measure for establishing confidence will be the speed and conviction with which the parties demonstrate and honour—and I stress honour—their commitment to the six Mitchell principles, one of which is the disposal of weapons and semtex.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his preparations for the first round of all-party talks on Northern Ireland. [9630]

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards substantive political negotiations involving all parties in Northern Ireland.[9636]

The Government have now had bilateral meetings with all the relevant parties to discuss their ideas on the way forward, although the meeting with the Democratic Unionist party was not part of the twin-track process. Meetings involving both the British and Irish Governments have also taken place separately with the Alliance party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein. Further meetings are planned with the continuing aim of reaching agreement on a basis for launching all-party negotiations by the end of February.

Does the Secretary of State agree that no obstacles should be placed in the way of all-party talks to perpetuate the peace in Northern Ireland? As Mr. Dick Spring made it clear this morning that the holding of elections was not broadly acceptable, is it not true to say that the holding of such elections, with an Assembly, at an early stage before all-party talks, would be unacceptable and would threaten the peace? When was Mr. Bruton informed of the Prime Minister's proposal which was made in the House yesterday?

What we are seeking, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained yesterday, may well be described as elections to all-party talks. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, of course, that no one should put obstacles in the way of progress towards peace. It is precisely in order to circumvent the obstacle represented by the fact that the paramilitaries are not willing even to begin to decommission their illegal arms that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced yesterday that we think it very desirable that there should be urgent consideration of the question of an election. That represents the way forward.

The Secretary of State will, of course, be aware that there is a marked lack of trust and confidence among some parts of the community in Northern Ireland about such elections and what they will establish. Can he tell the House what measures he could take which might build trust and confidence among those communities so that they might wish to participate in such elections?

The most important objective is to allay the nationalists' traditional and classic misgivings that the elections are intended as a way back to a Stormont regime.

With regard to decommissioning and the elective process in parallel, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is envisaged that the Northern Ireland parties would agree to the remit of an elected body, and also that that elected body would not have legislative or administrative powers? Surely such considerations would greatly reassure those who fear the return of Stormont.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an important point. The situation now is substantially different from the two occasions in the 1970s and 1980s when elections took place without altogether successful results. What is now being envisaged is not a body with legislative or administrative powers, but something quite separate and in the context of inclusive all-party negotiations. That is very different indeed.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is incumbent on all those who have any misgivings about the elections to do everything possible, in public and in private, to urge those who hold the weapons to give them up?

I believe that my hon. Friend is right about that. If independent and impartial corroboration and support for that is needed, it is to be found in the Mitchell report.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government are still committed to their agreement with the Irish Government that the target date for all-party talks is the end of February? In order to achieve that, will the Secretary of State implement the only major proposal of the Mitchell report, which is that all parties be invited to such talks provided that they accept and commit themselves to the six principles contained in the Mitchell report? Sir Patrick Mayhew: It remains the firm aim of Governments that all-party negotiations or all-party talks should begin by the end of February. I reaffirm that fact, but I cannot command it; I cannot require and compel people to come who will not come. As I have said to the House on many occasions, if I were to try to do that and to summon talks in the sure and certain knowledge that people would not be there, I would destroy the very process upon which all progress depends.

Most people in Northern Ireland welcome the measured approach of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to the Government's proposal for an elected body. However, does the Secretary of State understand that there was considerable disappointment in Northern Ireland last night at the negative response emanating from certain quarters in Dublin? Will he arrange an urgent meeting with the Dublin Government to make it clear to them that the peace convention—as I prefer to call it—is not an internal settlement, but will address many issues? All parties involved will address many issues, including cross-border relations and enhancing relations between Belfast and Dublin.

The reassurance of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks is to be found in the way that he describes. I think that there is a strong case for all interested parties and Governments to talk together "intensively"—to use the word employed. in the communiqué. I believe that that is no less true after the publication of the Mitchell report than before it.

If there is general agreement about an elective process, as the Prime Minister proposed yesterday, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the purpose of that electoral process is to lead directly to all-party talks in which the interests of all minority parties are safeguarded fully? Will the Secretary of State describe how he believes that that safeguarding will be achieved?

That is right. It is very important that any settlement that is achieved should attract widespread support. It can be arrived at only by way of a process in which all democratically mandated parties—including those representing quite small minority groups—have a part to play. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: that is the only viable way forward and we now wish to see it proceed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account he takes, in encouraging companies to locate in Northern Ireland, of the extent to which such location affects companies in other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [9631]

The rules applied in Northern Ireland for assessing the displacement effect of selective financial assistance support are exactly the same as those applied in all other parts of the United Kingdom.

As the Minister is aware—through the information that I have provided to his office and, by way of courtesy, also made available to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), in whose constituency the Benelux Manufacturing (NI) Ltd. production plant is located—a company in my constituency, Zonal Audio Plastics, is concerned about a contravention of the assurances that Benelux gave to the Industrial Development Board when the plant received support to locate in Northern Ireland. Instead of concentrating on exporting to the north American market, Benelux has severely undercut mainland competitors—not least the company in Invergordon, which employs between 40 and 60 people—in the United Kingdom and the European markets. Will the Minister comment further on that existing genuine business dilemma?

The Industrial Development Board, when appraising the project, analysed the existing markets in the United States and in Europe for CD jewel boxes, the forecast for growth in those markets, and the impact that the project would have on existing United Kingdom manufacturers. In deciding to assist the project, the IDB ensured that it properly addressed the relevant criteria for the provision of selective financial assistance.

Does the Minister agree that companies in all parts of the United Kingdom could benefit greatly from the promotion of the enterprise investment scheme, which has the potential to bring together companies who have money to invest and companies—particularly small companies—which are desperately in need of funding? In that regard and in the light of the problems affecting the Fokker aircraft company, will the Minister do all that he can to ensure that sympathetic consideration is given to Ministry of Defence tenders from Shorts of Belfast?

I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, and I am grateful to him for reminding the House and United Kingdom businesses of it. In relation to the second part of his question, we share his concerns about the situation that Shorts faces. I know that my colleagues in the MOD are sympathetic to Shorts' concerns, and I will ensure that what the right hon. Gentleman has to say is passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

First, I offer my warmest congratulations to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that one of the spin-offs of the location of so many companies in Northern Ireland and of inward investment is that manufacturing output is rising at twice the level of the United Kingdom overall, that exports have risen by more than 25 per cent. in the past three years, and that, as a consequence, unemployment is now down to the lowest level for more than fourteen and a half years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks and for the points that he raised. It is important to appreciate and to welcome the fact that, since the ceasefires last year, 6,000 jobs have been promoted by the IDB, of which more than 4,000 were generated by inward investment. In the financial year 1994–95, Northern Ireland attracted three times its per capita share of new inward investment jobs into the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of whether sums expended by the international fund for Ireland are targeted at those in greatest need. [9632]

Her Majesty's Government are kept fully appraised of the work of the fund through the advisory committee of senior officials, who, in turn, advise the fund's independent board. On the facts as advised to me, I am satisfied that the fund targets those in greatest need through its focus on disadvantaged areas, where some 70 per cent. of its resources are spent.

Is the Minister aware that whenever an application is made to the Housing Executive for a grant to repair a house, the applicant is means tested, but that no such means test applies when an individual, no matter how wealthy—and some of them are—applies for a grant to erect a dwelling or dwellings on derelict sites? Surely that is a total waste of public funds, since many of those sites could be sold profitably on the open market. Will the Minister arrange for serious consideration to be given to those matters?

The international fund is independent. As I understand it, it has helped to establish some 23,000 jobs in Northern Ireland and provides funding to a variety of organisations, including, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to note, some £330,000 to the Limavady small business agency in his constituency. I take note of what he says and I will ensure that the chairman of the fund is informed of his concern.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (a) arrests and (b) convictions have been made on charges of alleged drug trafficking offences in Northern Ireland for each of the last three years. [9633]

The Royal Ulster Constabulary drugs squad collates figures showing the total number of persons arrested for all types of drugs offences. It is not possible to identify separately how many were arrested for drugs trafficking offences. There were a total of 610 arrests in 1992; 976 in 1993; and 1,196 in 1994. The number of convictions for drugs trafficking offences were 29 in 1992; 110 in 1993; and 116 in 1994.

Does the Minister accept that the increase in those on-going figures shows the developing nature of the real problem of drug abuse in Northern Ireland? Many voluntary groups tackle drug abuse in Northern Ireland, such as the Northlands project in Londonderry/Derry, and Dunlewey, Contact Youth and Panda in Belfast. Those organisations receive some funding from the Government, but, in view of the need to tackle the problem on an overall basis, will he seriously consider increasing Government funding of those organisations?

I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I shortly expect to make a visit to the Northlands project so that I can see for myself the quality and extent of the work being done. I shall be visiting other projects too. In recognition of the growth of the drugs problem in Northern Ireland, funding has been increased to assist in education on the drug habit and its prevention. In addition, the RUC establishment has been greatly increased to prevent such offences.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January. [9656]

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 the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said today:

"It is blindingly obvious that we must develop a framework"—

Order. There should be no quoting during questions.

The director general said that we must develop a framework for involving employees at every level—dare I say it, a stakeholder economy. If it is blindingly obvious to the director general of the CBI, why is it not blindingly obvious to the Prime Minister that the reason why his Government are so deeply unpopular is that they have failed to give the British people a proper stake in their own country?

If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, he should be cautious about quoting the CBI at me. The CBI opposes the social chapter, the minimum wage and most of the policies advocated by the Opposition. When we and the director general of the CBI talk about stakeholders, we do not mean what the hon. Gentleman means. We know who Labour's stakeholders are. We know who owns 50 per cent. of the votes at the Labour party conference. We know who pays 50 per cent. of the money that the Labour party gets. We know what has been said by senior trade unionists. They have made it clear. While they continue to fund the party they will have a say. It is simple—no say, no pay. They are Labour's stakeholders.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing campaign of violence by the IRA and Sinn Fein has betrayed the peace process? Will he urge them now to accept the Mitchell report's recommendation and cease their heinous actions immediately? Furthermore, does he agree that if peace is to continue long term in Northern Ireland, the IRA and Sinn Fein have two clear options open to them? They can either begin immediately to decommission weapons or they can agree to take part in the democratic process, as outlined by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

Yes, of course, my hon. Friend is right in all she says. The point made by the Mitchell Commission about the decommissioning of weapons was that Sinn Fein-IRA would not decommission, not that they could not decommission. We still look forward to hearing from Sinn Fein-IRA whether they accept the other elements of the Mitchell report—whether they accept the six principles and the fact that they must condemn and stop for good punishment beatings and punishment killings. We still await a comprehensive response from them on those matters. I should like to start all-party talks as speedily as possible, but I cannot be clearer to the House than this—the impediment to all-party talks is and has been the unwillingness of Sinn Fein-IRA to begin the decommissioning of their arms. If they would begin the decommissioning of their arms, there would be no justification for any party not to attend and join in all-party talks leading to negotiations.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the test results for 11-year-olds in English and maths are appalling? May I put to him the following proposals for improvement? I propose an end to the delay in base-line assessment for five-year-olds, a reduction in class sizes for five-to-seven-year-olds, a register of national head teachers, the use of associate teachers in classrooms and a reinstatement of the reading recovery programme for primary school children which was so wrongly scrapped. Will the Prime Minister at least consider those proposals?

Let me say first that we have looked very carefully at the test results. Those of 11-year-olds are disappointing; those of other age groups are better. The point that the right hon. Gentleman and the House need to bear in mind—I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has apparently changed his policy on this—is that, as he will recall, the Labour party opposed the introduction of the tests, and he personally voted against it. We introduced the tests precisely to throw up the shortcomings that we believed were probably in the education system. The test results are very useful: they tell us where the shortcomings are so that we may deal with them, and we shall consider a range of measures with which to deal with them.

Was that not a complacent reply? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the problem does not relate merely to 11-year-olds? The GCSE results a few weeks ago also showed a decline. May I put it to the Prime Minister that, although the Secretary of State for Education and Employment may boast about the results for 14-year-olds today, those results still show an appalling level of failure in key curriculum subjects?

If it is the Conservative Government who have failed, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could explain why some of his right hon. Friends remove their children from Labour education authorities and have them educated under Conservative education authorities. While we are on the subject of the 16 years, perhaps he would also register the fact that in 1979 fewer than a quarter of pupils obtained five GCSEs; today the figure is 43 per cent. In 1979, 14 per cent. obtained two A-levels; now the figure is twice as high. In 1979, one in eight young people went to university; now, one in three do so.

Order.

There it is. The Government do not want to answer questions about the test results, and now we see the reason why they want to focus attention on one 11-year-old child—[Interruption.] The reason why they want to focus attention on one 11-year-old child is to conceal the damage that they have done to millions of our children.

The right hon. Gentleman will really have to learn to keep cool under pressure. If he casts his mind back, he may remember the episode of Jennifer's ear before the last election, and if he wants to talk about records and standards in education, he may remember that his deputy leader said that school performance tables are "political propaganda". Test results are "virtually worthless", said the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Tests encourage "a climate of failure" said the hon. Member for Dewsbury. They say that grant-maintained schools are wrong, but they are perfectly happy to use them. The fact of the matter is that Labour Members enjoy choice themselves, but they wish to deny it to other people.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, which I am sure he is, that today is the anniversary of the birth of Robert Burns who lived the latter part of his short and remarkable life in Dumfries? [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman, nor can the Prime Minister.

Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, this year, Scotland and countries further afield will be commemorating the 200th anniversary of the great poet's death? Will he send to Scotland, to the Burns Federation and to his drouthy cronies in the House a message of good will on his important bicentenary?

rose—[Interruption.] The deputy leader of the Opposition is heckling again. I must explain to the House that, despite occasional differences between us, the Leader of the Opposition and I have one thing in common: neither of us invites the deputy leader to meetings.

"As to Reform Principles, 1 look upon the British Constitution … to be the most glorious Constitution on earth, or that perhaps the wit of man can frame."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January. [9657]

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

During national empty homes week, in a fortnight's time, what advice will the Prime Minister be giving to the Ministry of Defence about the 552 empty married quarters in his own Huntingdon constituency?

At the moment, I should tell the hon. Gentleman two things. First, we shall be looking at the ways in which we can dispose of empty Ministry of Defence properties—we are determined to do that. Secondly, if the Labour-controlled authorities in London filled up their empty accommodation, they could wipe out homelessness in London at a stroke. In Southwark, Islington, Hackney and right across London, Labour-controlled authorities have an appalling record of keeping homes empty and then complaining about homelessness—as the hon. Gentleman has done. That is another illustration of Labour's hypocrisy. They make claims about something—they have the power in their hands to put it right, but don't.

On the ropes again, John.

I now have a definition of hope over optimism.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January. [9658]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that GP fundholding has brought enormous benefits to doctors and patients alike, especially in my constituency, in which they cover some 90 per cent. of the population? Is not it typical of the say one thing, do another Labour party that, while many of them take advantage of GP fundholding for themselves and their families, at a moment's notice, they would abolish it? Is not that typical of the hypocrisy of the modern Labour party?

I think that there is now overwhelming evidence that fundholders are able to get a better deal for their patients from hospitals. It makes sense to build on what has been achieved and induce more and more GPs to join the system—[Interruption.] I am sorry to hear cries of objection from the Opposition Benches. Those are not my words but the words of the vice-president of the Fabian Society and former adviser to Barbara Castle.