Object.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of recent progress towards a peace settlement. [15018]

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Irish Prime Minister on the peace process. [15023]

Since I last answered questions here, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have held discussions with the leaders of all Northern Ireland political parties and their colleagues, in some instances more than once. My right hon. Friend and I have been in close contact with the Taoiseach and I met the Irish Deputy Prime Minister on 1 and 7 February. Preparations are in hand for an Anglo-Irish summit.

Have British officials met Sinn Fein recently? What are the criteria by which Sinn Fein could meet Ministers in future?

Ministers will not meet Sinn Fein to discuss matters that are related to the peace process or political process unless and until a ceasefire has been credibly restored, as it should be forthwith. As for officials, to the best of my knowledge, there will be no meetings with officials.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, despite the action of the IRA cowards in launching their bomb in London and killing innocent people, we owe it to the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and throughout Ireland to continue the peace process? All suggestions should be considered. The Secretary of State should consider seriously the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that there should be a referendum in Northern Ireland. That would make it quite clear to those dreadful rascals and cowards that the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the divide and in both parts of Ireland are absolutely in favour of the peace process and against the violence that has recurred.

I warmly agree that the peace process must continue. The peace process consists of all the work that is carried out to replace conflict with the opposite of conflict. It is essential that there should be all-party and inclusive negotiation, and ways of achieving that are currently under intensive discussion with the parties and between the Governments. One of those is certainly the referendum to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is also the policy of the Irish Government that there should be no contact with Sinn Fein at ministerial level because Sinn Fein has not condemned outright the IRA's resumption of violence? That would be in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration, which enjoins that only parties committed to democratic principles and to peace can take part in negotiations.

My hon. Friend is certainly right. Paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration stipulates that, in addition to what he has said,

"parties have shown that they abide by the democratic process".

I appreciate the Government's desire to bring about serious talks in the near future, but should we not remember that over the past 17 months, Sinn Fein-IRA constantly refused to give any evidence that they were committed to exclusively peaceful means, and latterly have demonstrated in the clearest possible manner that they have no such commitment at all? Must that not affect our future policy? Must it not mean that we shall require much more than merely a ceasefire before we can take seriously any protestation of peaceful intent from that quarter? Should there not be urgent representations to the Irish Government that they should observe their duty under international law not to allow their territory to be used as a base for attack on this part of the United Kingdom?

As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that the Irish Government need any reminder of what he has in mind. I am satisfied that the co-operation between the two police forces and the two Governments on security matters is very good.

Does the Secretary of State agree that policing is very important to keeping the peace in Northern Ireland? Is he aware of what took place at the police authority last night, when an overwhelming vote of no confidence was passed in Mr. Cook, the chairman, and in Mr. Ryder, one of the members? It was passed because of Mr. Cook's breach of faith as chairman in revealing matters under discussion, and because Mr. Ryder said that the police authority was a performing poodle. There was an overwhelming vote of no confidence in them, but they have said that that does not matter to them and they will do what they like and stay on. Does the Secretary of State think that it would be in the best interests of the police authority that those two men leave the police authority?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that policing is extremely important to the people of Northern Ireland, especially in the present circumstances. It is a thousand pities that divisions are so manifest in the police authority. I look forward to meeting the chairman of the police authority at an early date, and I shall wish to hear about what has occurred and any proposals that he may have.

Does the Secretary of State agree that everybody in the House wants to see lasting stability in Northern Ireland; that the only way to bring that about—without threat to any section of our people—is by agreement; and that the way to do that is to get all parties to the table? Does he further agree that it should be the urgent priority of the Government to get all parties to the table as soon as possible? If anybody has to take risks to do that, they are worth taking if we are going to save human life.

I have no difficulty in agreeing with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. One can identify an objective, but it is easier to identify and to express it than it is to achieve it. As I have twice said this afternoon, it is the immediate objective of the Government—as I know it is of the parties—to achieve inclusive, all-party negotiations, but they have to take place on the basis of confidence that the requirements of the Downing street declaration are fulfilled. That is the stumbling block at the moment.

May I ask that attention be given to the background to the report in today's Evening Standard about the reaction in the United States to the fracture of the peace process? Would it be possible to explain, with the Irish Government, to some of the writers in American newspapers that, if they interviewed Families Against Intimidation and Terror or if they listened to the words of the family of the young man who was fatally involved in the Aldwych bomb, they would understand that the British and Irish Governments are trying to unlock the doors to all-party talks that could be held on conditions to which all parties can agree?

My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to the brave and moving words of the family of the young man. I think that there is an extraordinarily widely held misapprehension, not only in the United States, about the true character of the decision to return to violence. It is essential that we all explain the realities of the situation—not least that the British Government, far from dragging their feet, have had countless meetings with all concerned, including Sinn Fein, with a view to achieving the all-party negotiations that are the only route to a political settlement.

Will the Secretary of State outline his views on the merits of Labour's proposals earlier this week for formal and intensive talks with the Northern Ireland parties and the two Governments, where appropriate, to reach widespread agreement on the way to bring the parties to full negotiation? That could include a combined referendum and an elective process to take the parties directly into talks, and chronologically fixed stages for the possible referendums and talks to begin. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, as we believe, for Sinn Fein to take part in any negotiations in which Ministers are involved, it must be committed to a genuine ceasefire—as article 10 of the Downing street declaration states?

I warmly agree, particularly with the last part of the hon. Lady's remarks. It is impossible to suppose that Ministers in this Government—the Irish Government have made exactly the same point—will discuss matters with a party inextricably associated with people who have gone back to violence to achieve their political aims and who have turned their backs on the democratic process. A restored ceasefire Is absolutely essential. We have a shared policy and objective across the House—that there shall be inclusive negotiations on an all-party basis within the three-stranded structure, because that is the only way through to the political settlement that we all seek. The means to which the hon. Lady referred are certainly each of them relevant to that process. They are not exclusively relevant—we have an open mind on any constructive ideas that are put forward in the process that we are continuing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the level of inward investment into Northern Ireland in 1995–96. [15019]

Since April 1995, Northern Ireland has secured eight inward investment projects promoting 2,306 jobs, representing a total investment of £179 million.

One dividend of the ceasefire has been the ability of Northern Ireland to attract increasing levels of inward investment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a number of potential investors will be looking carefully at any progress towards not only a ceasefire but a permanent ceasefire in Northern Ireland before making any decisions about investing there? Would it not be in the best interests of all people in Northern Ireland to work together to secure the resumption of the ceasefire as quickly as possible?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have made it clear from the Dispatch Box before that the best incentive for inward investment is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The Province has experienced troubles before but still managed during them to secure investment. The examples of Shorts, Ford and Du Pont during the troubles show that if the economic indicators in Northern Ireland are right, inward investment can be attracted. That is the case at the moment, and we look forward to continuing to promote inward investment in Northern Ireland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister in the other place consider convening a meeting of bankers, now that three more banks are coming to Northern Ireland, for the purpose of studying how they might best assist small industries in the Province? That is not to be confused with any proximity exercise.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that distinction. I will certainly put his idea to my noble Friend, Lady Denton, who I am sure will want to discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman. We are all agreed that we must work to promote the economic prosperity of all parts of Northern Ireland. Whatever the men of violence may wish towards their communities, we want those communities to prosper, and we shall continue to work for that.

I welcome the number of inward investment jobs to which the Minister referred, but is he aware that there is disappointment west of the Province at the number of jobs that have gone in that direction? The Minister will be aware of the tragic announcement of the loss of 144 jobs at Unipork. What special measures can the Government take to ensure that jobs are directed to areas such as Cookstown?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have tried to attract inward investment to all parts of the Province, not just particular parts of it. We appreciate that there are difficulties in certain areas. He will be aware that there has been considerable inward investment in his constituency—for example, the new factory in Strabane that will result from the EU peace initiative. The investment of £800,000 in the factory is a good example of what we are trying to do. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall pass it on to my noble Friend.

Does the Minister agree that inward investment and the creation of jobs can play a part in defeating terrorism? Will the Government continue to encourage the business community, as we have done? Will the Government pledge to do all that they can to assist Bombardier in its discussions with Fokker—discussions that could not only protect existing jobs at Shorts but create extra jobs?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that inward investment, prosperity and the creation of jobs have a role to play in underpinning peace, which is why economic prosperity and the encouragement of it has always been a major part of the Government's economic and overall strategy in Northern Ireland.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the most important sources of inward investment is tourism, and that part of the essential reason why the peace process must work is that tourists can be attracted into the Province in even greater numbers than before? Will he take note of the fact that the unceasing work that is done by him and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in trying to resolve the problems of the troubled Province goes down extremely well with all those who love that part of the United Kingdom, with an affection that is not confined just to Opposition and Conservative Members?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks. I am sure that that gratitude is shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of children of secondary school age are in (a) comprehensive schools (b) grant-maintained comprehensive schools (c) religious denominational voluntary aided schools (d) private schools, and (e) selective state grammar schools. [15020]

Because of the different educational structures at secondary level in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain, school types do not read across directly. The relevant Northern Ireland figures are that some 40 per cent. of secondary age pupils attend grammar schools, 58 per cent. secondary schools, just over 1 per cent. grant-maintained integrated schools and less than 1 per cent. independent schools.

Is the Minister aware that the statistical bulletin produced by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland refers to the unacceptable number of poorly qualified or unqualified school leavers coming out of schools in Northern Ireland? What do the Government plan to do to remedy that?

That has been a matter of concern to me as Education Minister during the time that I have held that office. It was for that reason that I introduced the raising school standards initiative, which is directly targeted at dealing with that problem. In Northern Ireland, only 4 per cent. of pupils fail to achieve any GCSEs compared with 8 per cent. in England. Although there is still more to be done, our policies in that area are working.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer and the people of Northern Ireland on their good fortune—which many in England would like to share—in having so many grammar school places. Does not the main hope for the future in Northern Ireland lie in the growth of non-denominational education, as denominational schools can merely aggravate the religious divide?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. I know that the attraction of selective education is understood not only by Conservative Members but by one or two Opposition Members, who like to take advantage of it.

I would appreciate it if, at some time, the Secretary of State or the Minister would make a statement about the percentage of school children in my constituency of Belfast, West who have been able to attend a secondary school, grammar school or some school like that.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall be happy to meet him to discuss the situation and to try to provide him with some of the information that he seeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial resources he has allocated to fund organisations which assist community groups to make submissions on planning issues. [15021]

Community technical aid was established in 1980 to provide advocacy and technical support to community organisations on planning issues. In 1995–96, the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment provided £110,000 to CTA.

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. As he knows, however, there is a democratic deficit within the planning process in Northern Ireland, which has been the position for some years. Bearing that in mind, surely he will agree that it is essential that there is a proper balance within the decision-making planning process so that organisations such as community technical aid are fully funded to ensure that community groups are properly trained so that they are able to take on the system.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Department has recently had CTA's work evaluated by independent consultants. A management consultant has just finished a six-months' assignment with CTA, during which it was assisted to streamline the organisation and refocus activities in its main areas of business. I am happy to reiterate what I said to the Select Committee that examines planning issues. If the organisation feels that it needs more resources, I shall consider any approach that is made to me on that basis.

Will my hon. Friend explain why the planning process in Northern Ireland cannot be carried out by properly elected local government? Will he give to the constitutional nationalists a sense of purpose and a proper role in the community of Ulster, and to a great extent stop their aspiration for a united Ireland, if necessary by force?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I have some sympathy with the sentiments that lie behind it. I have visited every district council in Northern Ireland over the past year, and there is a level of frustration among elected councillors because of their lack of involvement in the planning process. However, the future reorganisation of local government in the Province is really a matter for discussion between my right hon. and hon. Friends and the elected Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, in terms of future political development.

If there is to be some movement away from the highly centralised development control system in Northern Ireland, will the Minister consider the scope for more local determination? To retain confidence, will he consider using his Department for appeals by both applicants and objectors?

We are considering listening to the advice of district councils as to how we can involve them more in the process of planning procedures. As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there is no procedure in Great Britain, as a whole, to make appeals on the basis for which he asks. Until such changes are made here, the process in Northern Ireland must continue as it is.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Province. [15022]

Over the past 10 years, premature deaths from coronary heart disease in Northern Ireland have fallen by 33 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, between 1985 and 1994, the number of deaths from premature coronary heart disease fell from 1,056 to 703? Does he agree that much of the credit for that should go to the change of heart programme, which was set up in 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)? Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend recognise that the level of heart disease in Northern Ireland remains among the highest in the world? What further plans does he have to research the reasons for that high incidence of heart disease and to promote better dietary and other habits to reduce those figures further still?

As my hon. Friend says, that reduction is one of the great achievements of the health service in Northern Ireland over the past decade and more. The change of heart programme was established in 1986 and set a target of a 15 per cent. reduction, which we achieved within five years. We have now set more challenging targets, of about a 40 per cent. reduction by the turn of the century. As for attacking the problem of a regional health strategy for health and social services, we have set a target to increase the number of cardiac operations in Northern Ireland by about 1,200 in the coming years. We have reached that target in the past two years, and we hope to do more in the future.

Does the Minister accept that a change in diet and habits is needed—rather than the change of heart to which he referred in relation to surgical operations—which has been achieved by the Chest, Heart and Stroke Association's campaign? Is it not wrong for advertisers, particularly tobacco advertisers, to try to lure children into that habit, which has an adverse effect on children's hearts?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I acknowledge the work that has been done by the society that he mentioned. The change of heart programme tackled the main risk factors of smoking, raised blood pressure, cholesterol and physical inactivity. The Health Promotion Agency in Northern Ireland manages the change of heart programme and spends about one third of its £1.3 million budget on resources to tackle the risk factors associated with heart disease. The agency's efforts are complemented locally by the health promotion work of the health and social services boards and trusts and by general practitioners. New Province-wide strategies on food, nutrition and physical activity are being developed.

Despite the good news about trends that the Minister has delivered to the House, is he aware of the very alarming instruction issued by the director of the Royal Victoria hospital to consultant cardiac surgeons that they should not perform any further cardiac surgery except in cases of extreme emergency or when patients are referred to them by a fundholding general practitioner in the entire area of the Eastern and Northern health board? Is that not very discriminatory, and what action does he intend to take to ensure that my constituents, particularly those with cardiac conditions, get an equal deal in health care?

I am not aware of the details of the hon. Gentleman's question, but, if he will write to me, I shall certainly look into the matter for him. I repeat that the regional strategy sets a target for increasing the number of cardiac operations in Northern Ireland from only 700 in 1990 to 1,100 by 1993. That target has since increased. We have appointed two additional cardiac surgeons at the Royal Victoria hospital in the past three years, and we intend to tackle the problem head on in the future.

Has my hon. Friend seen the research work undertaken by Professor Alan Howard of Cambridge university that states that drinking a glass of red wine a day helps to alleviate heart disease? Will he encourage all the excellent hostelries throughout Northern Ireland—in Belfast and Bangor—many of which I am personally familiar with, to sell not only the excellent stout produced in the island of Ireland but red wine?

My hon. Friend will have to wait until the new licensing laws are announced, which I hope to do in the near future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances the Government of the United Kingdom seek the prior consent of the Republic of Ireland to execute decisions relating to elections within the United Kingdom. [15024]

There are no such circumstances, as the execution of such decisions would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the pique expressed by the Government of the Republic about the alleged failure of Her Majesty's Government to consult them on the issue of elections in Northern Ireland seems to reveal a claim to a role in Northern Ireland's affairs under the 1985 agreement that goes well beyond the consultative? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in November 1985, on the day after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the then Taoiseach of the Republic told Members of the Dail Eireann that the powers granted to the Republic went far beyond the consultative and stopped short of being full executive powers only because of the notional idea or concept of sovereignty?

I do not think that I shall follow the hon. and learned Gentleman down the paths that his question took; nor do I think it profitable to explore what was undoubtedly a period of disagreement that arose out of the Government's response to the Mitchell report. Both Governments remain united in seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland to achieve a comprehensive political settlement. They also remain united on the means by which that can be achieved: a process of inclusive all-party negotiations. I would prefer to concentrate on that rather than on the occasional ups and downs that occur in such a close relationship.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that, whatever the Republic of Ireland's views, they are not important in the sense of what the House will and cannot do? What is important is that the IRA should never get the message that it can intimidate Her Majesty's Government or the House into not holding elections in Northern Ireland.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It has been a matter of great importance that the two Governments should stand side by side in their response to the evil and totally unjustified return to violence that has been carried out by people who have turned their backs on democracy.

As most people in Northern Ireland—with the exception of Sinn Fein—agree with the principle of consent, does the Secretary of State recall that the large majority of people in Northern Ireland oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that all hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches remain implacably opposed to it? Does he therefore understand clearly that any statement by the Government on the future political process in Northern Ireland that implicitly involves the Anglo-Irish Agreement cannot succeed?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that part of the purpose of the negotiations, about which we have been talking at length this afternoon, is to see whether a new and more widely accepted agreement between the two Governments can be found. That was part of the process of the three-stranded talks in 1991–92 and it remains something which, by definition, would be desirable.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that a great many people in Northern Ireland support political parties that are not represented in the House? Does he agree that elections that would lead directly to all-party talks would enable their concerns and interests to be given a voice in those all-party talks?

My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. It is important to remember that, as was observed by Senator Mitchell in his report, a process of elections would need to be widely accepted. One of the reasons why it seems to offer a means of carrying forward the confidence that is needed is that it would enable Northern Ireland's people to make their views known in the new circumstances.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the only parties that refused to enter all-party negotiations were the two Unionist parties and that the Prime Minister's stated reason for proposing an elective process was to get those parties directly and immediately into all-party negotiations? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that yesterday the Unionist parties made it clear that, even after an elective process, they would not go directly and immediately into all-party negotiations? Why does the Prime Minister foolishly and stubbornly pursue a policy that cannot achieve his own stated objective?

I have always found that the Unionist parties, like every other party represented in the House, are well capable of speaking for themselves. On the whole, it is wiser to let them do so—that is true of all parties in the House. Rather than go down a historical road, especially one that is conditioned by the premises of the hon. Gentleman's question, I would prefer to concentrate on what unites parties in the House, particularly those that take a close interest in Northern Ireland affairs: the need to establish an inclusive process of talks, at which are represented all the parties that fulfil the stipulations of paragraph 10 of the Downing Street declaration. That means in particular those that have established that they are wholly committed to democratic principles. That is what unites us all. We must now set much of the past behind us and concentrate on the means by which that objective can be achieved.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, over the past few days, Government spin doctors have been briefing the press to the effect that he and the Prime Minister do not view as mutually exclusive the proposal for an elected convention put forward by my party, the referendum proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the proximity talks proposal being put forward by the Government of the Irish Republic? Is that the direction in which the Government are leaning?

If any spin doctors—I have never met one—have been spinning in the direction of the idea that all these proposals are put forward in good faith as offering a possible way forward and that all are relevant to achieving the objective that we share, I am glad, and I hope that they will go on spinning, because it happens to be true. In the process of the intensive talks that are going on, we must try to rough-hew an agreed way forward. There are good prospects of doing so.

If there is general support for elections, as the Secretary of State said, does he agree that all parties that are committed to exclusively peaceful methods should know at the time of the elections when, where and how all-party talks should take place?

There is no doubt that nationalists are anxious that all-party negotiations of an inclusive type are started as soon as possible. There is nothing special about them—I think everybody is concerned about that. We cannot identify a date as being the one with certainty on which negotiations will start. We can, however—this is useful—do what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done: set out a timetable by which it seems likely that the House would approve the necessary legislation and by which thereafter we could, in a short space of time, measured in days rather than weeks, enter the negotiations that we all seek.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of elections on the level of violence in Northern Ireland since 1971. [15025]

There does not appear to be any direct correlation between elections and levels of violence in Northern Ireland.

Is the Minister aware of figures provided for me by the Library, tracing the past 25 years? They show not only that there is no correlation between election years and positive peace-building processes but that election years have invariably produced more deaths, injuries, explosions and firearms caches, which have bucked the trend of decreasing violence. Does the Minister accept that wider evidence suggests that elections follow the conclusion of all-party peace talks rather than their pre-emption? Is that not where the Government should be starting right now?

I cannot comment on the detail of the figures given by the hon. Gentleman. What I can say is that, in the event of elections, the Royal Ulster Constabulary will produce a plan to protect the public who wish to participate in them.

To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 772, what proposals he has made for the abolition of United Nations bodies. [15047]

I believe in an effective United Nations. Eliminating waste must be part of that. As I advised the hon. Gentleman recently, that includes, where necessary, a long-term look at the functions and programmes that have outlived their usefulness.

Before any such bodies can be abolished, the United Nations must contend with the election of a new Secretary-General. Why are the Government advocating the re-election of Dr. Boutros Ghali so assiduously? Should not the Prime Minister and other leaders be campaigning for a candidate of the stature of, say, President Mary Robinson of the Irish Republic, or some other stateswoman or statesman of equal standing? As for Dr. Boutros Ghali, should we not be saying cheerio to the old fellow?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not indicate how they will vote on these occasions, and I do not propose to do so now. What I think most important is that the United Nations is efficient, and efficiently run. It is distressing to note that a large number of United Nations bodies have patently outlived their usefulness. They have no proper functions to perform either now or in the future, and they should be removed.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15048]

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.

Can the Prime Minister explain to the House—and, indeed, to the public—why, when the reputation of members of his Cabinet is at stake and when the House is to debate a report that he personally commissioned, he is denying the House a substantive motion on which to vote and, moreover, is not prepared to come here and take part in the debate?

I am here every Tuesday and Thursday to answer questions, and I do answer those questions.

Where is the right hon. Gentleman on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?

If hon. Members wish to have Prime Minister's Questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I am not entirely sure that they will carry the whole House with them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is simply unacceptable that an unelected foreign court should put its judgment on British policy before that of a British Home Secretary? If ultimately we have to follow the consequences of backing British opinion and contemplate leaving the European Court of Justice at the expense of pandering to the European liberal intelligentsia, would that not be very much the lesser of two evils?

It is of course extremely disappointing—and to many hon. Members extremely irritating—that the European Court of Human Rights has found against the Government on a procedure that has been used in this country for very many years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is looking very carefully at the judgment to see precisely what effect it has. I have said before that the Government are not satisfied with some of the rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights and we are pursuing with other members of the Council of Europe precisely what might be done to improve what we believe is a flawed system.

Does the Prime Minister agree that there are two questions on the Scott report: first, was Parliament misled and, secondly, were Ministers to blame? On the first, the Chancellor has been forced to issue an apology today for a Treasury press release and has admitted that Scott found that Parliament was misled. Does the Prime Minister agree with that? Can we have a clear answer? Does he accept that Scott found that Parliament was misled?

There were two questions, of course, that Sir Richard Scott was asked to investigate, and he investigated both those and other matters as well. The two principal points that Sir Richard was asked to determine were, first, whether Saddam Hussein was illegally supplied with arms—as charged by right hon. and hon. Opposition Members—and he found that he was not; and, secondly, whether there was a conspiracy to pervert justice by an improper use of public interest immunity certificates and, again, he found that there was not.

We will come to the question of blame, Ministers deliberately withholding information from Parliament in breach of rules of accountability, not telling the truth when they were in a position to know so—all of which Sir Richard found. Can I have it clearly on the record whether the Prime Minister, leaving aside the question of intention, to which we will come, accepts that Parliament was misled—yes or no?

I answered that question on Tuesday. I have answered that question again today and I have made it absolutely clear. There was no intention whatever to mislead Parliament—nor did my right hon. Friends do that on any occasion of which I am aware.

The Prime Minister is not prepared to answer the basic question. How has he reached the position of commissioning the report to get at the truth, and three years and millions of pounds later walking away from the findings that he does not like? Just like Nolan, just like Greenbury—it is a textbook definition of Majorism. Can the Prime Minister please tell us whether he accepts the key findings, first, that Parliament was misled and, secondly, that Ministers deliberately withheld information in breach of the rules of ministerial accountability? If he cannot answer them, we will conclude that he is unable and his Government are unable to distinguish between what is true and what is false.

That was not so much a sound bite as a sound nibble. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there was no deceit whatever, and that was apparent from the report. I will tell the House why the right hon. Gentleman keeps moving to these points. He knows that on the substantive issues Sir Richard found in the Government's favour. He knows that on the issues that the inquiry was set up to consider, the Government were found to have behaved entirely properly. That is why the right hon. Gentleman changes the ground rules.

Why are non-wage labour costs in the UK half those of our major competitors? Why is our take-home pay higher than that of our major competitors and why is our unemployment lower? Is it a result of the Government's policies, which are making us the enterprise centre of Europe?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this country's favourable economic position. He is equally right to draw attention to the fact that, if we accepted the social costs, through the social chapter as it is now and the social chapter as it would be if any British Government were foolish enough to join it, we would find the same extra costs, the same lack of competitiveness and the same increase in unemployment as we have seen in so many of our competitor countries across Europe. We have no intention of making those mistakes. No party that is genuinely concerned about employment should contemplate such policies, because they will keep people out of work who are out of work at present and they will put out of work people who are in work at present.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15049]

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

Returning to the Scott report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members suggest that it is boring. It is not boring in my constituency, which is just down the road from Matrix Churchill. Now let the Prime Minister try to give us a straight answer to a straight question. Does he accept the finding of the Scott report that the Attorney-General was personally at fault for failing to pass on the view of the Deputy Prime Minister that the documents for which he claimed public interest immunity should be shown to the defence?

The Attorney-General made it clear to the House on Monday that he took specific steps to ensure, through my right hon. Friend's special PII certificate, that the judge was alerted to the need for special care. The judge exercised his discretion, precisely as the Attorney-General had said he would, and ordered the disclosure of the relevant papers to the defence. The hon. Gentleman should stop twisting and misinterpreting what happened.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15050]

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that, with high unemployment in this country and even higher unemployment in our European partner countries, we need policies that will lift the burden off industry to enable it to create jobs? Whatever the wriggling, the Labour party's support for the social chapter and the minimum wage blows apart its claim to be able to create jobs. All it would do is tax jobs.

My hon. Friend is right about that. [Interruption.] I said "my hon. Friend". Fond though I am of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I do not regard him as my right hon. Friend in parliamentary terms—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman seeks repeatedly to interrupt Prime Minister's Question Time. He reminds me that it was he who said that, after 15 years of deregulation, he did not see much investment flooding in. He should go to Sedgefield, Livingston and all sorts of other places throughout the country to see the inward investment that has been a result of this Government's policy. It has provided jobs for people whom the right hon. Gentleman's policies would leave on the scrap heap for ever.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February. [15051]

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

The Prime Minister keeps on repeating that the Scott report has cleared his Government. If that is the case, why is he so scared of allowing the House a vote on the future of the two Ministers concerned? What is he scared of?

The House will have its opportunity to debate and to vote on the motion on Monday. I have indicated my confidence in both Ministers. I have indicated that, on the two substantive matters that caused me to set up the Scott report, Sir Richard has cleared the Government of any malpractice whatsoever. I have also said before, and I repeat it again now, that what happened did bring out shortcomings in some areas. I said that last week and I repeat it again today. We will take those shortcomings very seriously. We are examining what Sir Richard had to say and we will bring before the House speedily our proposed measures to remedy those things that need changing.