To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [30922]

I propose to make provision, through an Order in Council, for Northern Ireland to move from the present mandatory grants scheme to the broadly discretionary scheme provided for in the Bill.

I thank the Minister for that reply and his encouraging response to extend the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill to Northern Ireland. However, he missed one item. We are advised by Ministers in Committee about the involvement of local government in the administration of a great number of those initiatives. Will the Minister take action to involve local government in Northern Ireland with some of the administration of the Bill, as that would encourage local people to be closer to the people and decision making?

There is already machinery for negotiation and discussion with local authorities on many aspects of Northern Ireland legislation. The hon. Gentleman might be referring to an item in the Bill on home energy. That will become the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development, which will take charge of the Northern Ireland energy efficiency scheme. However, there will be close liaison with local authorities on that and other matters.

Is there any point in introducing further grant legislation when there are inordinate delays in processing those grants?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we are experiencing some delay at the moment, but we are taking steps on repair grants to make sure that there are no delays in future. I would point out that we have steadily increased spending on private sector housing grants in Northern Ireland from £32 million in 1993–94 to £47 million in the coming financial year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures on inward investment to Northern Ireland. [30923]

During the year ended 31 March 1996, Northern Ireland secured 35 inward investment projects, offering 4,869 jobs and representing a total investment of £432 million. It was our best ever year for inward investment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply and for the good news about inward investment in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that one of the hidden bonuses of an IRA ceasefire would be the creation of even more inward investment and more jobs, which would help the people whom the IRA keeps saying it is trying to help—those in Republican areas who are currently out of work? That would be an extra boost to the economy of the area and the future of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best incentive to inward investment would be political stability and a firm and lasting peace. Certainly, everybody who is involved in politics in Northern Ireland must take every opportunity to remind those who pursue violence as a means of pursuing their political purposes that they do a disservice to their community, as my hon. Friend has set out. Peace can bring jobs, jobs can bring prosperity, and prosperity is what the people of Northern Ireland want.

Given the excellent record of the Industrial Development Board in attracting investment from many parts of the world, would not those efforts be greatly enhanced by the establishment of an all-party economic committee based in both Houses of Parliament?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that the matter has been of interest to him for some time. I also know that my noble Friend Lady Denton regards the assistance of Members of both Houses in promoting the economy and economic development in Northern Ireland as very valuable. I am sure that she will look for further support in that direction.

I join the Minister in welcoming the good news which he has articulated this afternoon, especially that of the past week, with the announcement of 1,800 jobs in west Belfast, Cookstown, Newtownabbey and Larne out of the total of 4,800 that he mentioned. Great praise is due to the Industrial Development Board and the Department for that achievement.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and his congratulations on the performance of the Northern Ireland economy over the past year. It is interesting to note that the London-Belfast air route is now the second busiest in Europe, which says something for Northern Ireland's prospects. Industry and investment cannot be directed to places; they can be encouraged. Obviously, my noble Friend Lady Denton does what she can to ensure that businesses that go to Northern Ireland are spread as effectively as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the issue of decommissioning paramilitary arms. [30924]

Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government are co-operating closely in drawing up legislation designed to underpin any decommissioning scheme emerging from the talks process.

Does the Minister agree that, given the appalling history of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland, it is essential to address decommissioning? Given that the whole House wants a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, it is essential that we have all-party talks. Will he tell us the precise criteria by which he would be prepared to admit Sinn Fein to those talks?

The criteria for the admission of Sinn Fein to the talks process are well established. First, there must be an unequivocal ceasefire; then Sinn Fein will gain entry to the talks process. But it must agree to the Mitchell principles. All the parties attending the talks process so far have so agreed. There is no excuse for the continuing violence in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland. The sooner those who talk about a commitment to democracy choose to honour that commitment, the greater will be the progress towards peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland and in the island of Ireland as a whole.

Does the Minister agree that the real task facing us now is to take the gun for ever out of our politics? In my own opinion and judging by my own experience, we now have the best opportunity ever to do so. Will the Minister reaffirm the fact that the real challenge that now faces us is that, although the talks process threatens no section of our people, it in effect challenges all of us to come up with the new thinking that will accommodate both our traditions and give us the lasting stability that all sections of our people are now screaming for?

I agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman; he is quite right. If there is to be progress, all our voices must be used to stop, for example, the petrol bomb attacks which occur regularly. There have been 62 such attacks in Northern Ireland since 1 January. There must also be an end to the appalling cycle of violence through punishment attacks, of which there have been no fewer than 407 since August 1994. So long as those events are taking place, there will not be the confidence within the community and among the democratic parties which foregather for the talks process that the terrorist groups genuinely seek to take the gun and the Semtex out of politics.

Is the Minister encouraged, as we are, by the fact that the loyalist paramilitaries have now been in ceasefire mode for 20 months, which is longer than any other ceasefire during the past 25 or 26 years? Is he aware that the elected representatives associated with the loyalist paramilitaries have given their assent to the Mitchell principles? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the difficulty that those people will face when they agree in principle to abide in every way by the Mitchell principles, but feel unable to put that into tangible effect because there is no pro rata agreement or arrangement by the republican paramilitaries? Does he agree that we must all try to establish the confidence-building measures that will encourage progress in that respect?

The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise confidence-building measures. Of course people can sign up to the six Mitchell principles, but that means that they must use their influence, they must condemn and, so far as they can, they must ensure that punishment attacks, petrol bombing and racketeering all end, so that, progressively, the people of Northern Ireland can enjoy a peaceful environment. It is extraordinary, for example, that Sinn Fein could not even condemn the murder of a detective constable in the Republic of Ireland last week.

Is it not true that, although there is much talk about the IRA-Sinn Fein wanting to come into the talks process at some time, at present, while the talks are going on, those people are actually regrouping, restocking and retraining with the weaponry of war? Is it not also true that a mere declaration for the Mitchell principles will not be acceptable, and that there must also be a surrender of weapons and of the teeth of war if we are to have peace?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right: the Provisional IRA has proved to be a formidably organised terrorist structure, and it is doing what he describes. If Sinn Fein is to be part of the talks process, an unequivocal ceasefire must be announced, followed by Sinn Fein signing up to the six Mitchell principles, which must then be honoured. During the weeks after that, a start to decommissioning will be made. Until those events occur, there will not be confidence among those seeking a democratic way forward for Northern Ireland.

I endorse 100 per cent. the views expressed by my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is the only key to the door of a genuine ceasefire and lasting peace? Does he accept that the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland—on both sides of the religious divide—believe that weapons should be handed in? Would it not be a betrayal of the trust of the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland—whether nationalist or Unionist—if the Government allowed terrorists to retain their weapons?

My hon. Friend is right, but there are many keys on the key ring, including that of talks and negotiations. The most important key of all is the commitment to decommissioning that is part of the six Mitchell principles. Once made, it must be honoured. Once decommissioning starts, people will believe that the process will gain momentum. The horror of the murder of the Garda constable in the Republic of Ireland last week has struck home widely in the island of Ireland. My hon. Friend is right to say that, overwhelmingly, the people want to see the start of decommissioning and a total end to violence.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the motivation of Sinn Fein in taking part in the Northern Ireland elections. [30925]

None, Madam Speaker. It may be supposed that Sinn Fein wished to qualify itself to participate in all-party negotiations. But it is excluding itself from these, because both Governments have stipulated that there must first be an unequivocal restoration by the IRA of the 1994 ceasefire.

Further to the answer by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the IRA and Sinn Fein are playing cynical games with the peace process and with the lives of people in Northern Ireland? Are they not using a ceasefire as a bargaining counter, dangling it as a lure in front of the noses of the Government and both communities in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that Sinn Fein is not allowed near peace negotiations unless a total, genuine and permanent commitment to peace is made?

That is certainly required by the people of Northern Ireland, and far more widely. The Irish and British Governments are at one in stipulating that, before Sinn Fein can enter the negotiations, the IRA must restore unequivocally the 1994 ceasefire. It is wholly incompatible with a professed commitment to peaceful and democratic methods to be associated inextricably with an organisation that has used arms for nationalist purposes in the past and refuses to restore the 1994 ceasefire.

In those elections, the people of Northern Ireland elected delegates to a forum, which will have its first meeting tomorrow. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in wishing it well, because it can and will make a significant contribution to dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that Sinn Fein can tomorrow have its mandate recognised by taking its places in the forum and that, if it fails to do so, we can conclude only that its commitment to democracy is as hypocritical as its commitment to peace?

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of the forum, as declared in the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996, is to promote dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland. If Sinn Fein is not prepared to take its place in a body with such objectives, what conclusion should be drawn? The hon. Gentleman correctly reminds the House that Sinn Fein is entitled by virtue of its election successes alone to take its places in the forum. I believe that people in Northern Ireland, and much more widely, will look to see whether Sinn Fein is there and will draw their own conclusions if it is not.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that part of the problem with the public having confidence in Sinn Fein-IRA saying that it has a total and permanent commitment to peaceful settlement of the problem is the fact that it retains its arms? If it retains its arms during negotiations, it could at any stage resort again to violence. For the public to have any confidence in its word, it needs to give up those arms.

Of course my hon. Friend is right in associating the issue of arms and their decommissioning with confidence by everybody else that Sinn Fein is wholly committed to peaceful means, as both Governments have insisted all parties must be if they are to participate in all-party negotiations. It is a question of confidence, and there can be no compatibility in a democracy with the retention of arms for the purpose of holding them illegally to secure political advantage.

I know that the Secretary of State will agree that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland of both traditions want the IRA to call a ceasefire forthwith. They want an end to punishment beatings and to the daily intimidation in my constituency.

Of course that is right. There would not have been all-party negotiations, as a matter of reality and practice, had there not been an elective process first. That was recognised several months ago and the process has now taken place. It is very necessary that those who have been elected should take their place at every stage of the negotiations if the full purpose that the House—among other bodies—required is to be achieved. Of course that is the case. That extends right across the board and it includes Sinn Fein, which received an elective mandate, principally, I believe, from people who wanted to see it demonstrating its commitment to peaceful methods. Let it end its self-imposed exclusion now.

Further to what my right hon. and learned Friend said, does he believe that it ill behoved certain sections of the British press to show a photograph of Messrs. Adams and McGuinness that portrayed them as having been locked out of the talks, when they had locked themselves out? Is it not the height of cynicism for Sinn Fein to take part in democratic elections and then not fully uphold the principles of democracy?

I agree warmly with both parts of my hon. Friend's question. I have made my views known about the second part, but let me say a few words about what he said at the beginning. Those photographs dutifully and predictably appearing in the newspapers of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness peering through the bars were deeply misleading. Why was the reality not shown of a gateway open to them, through which they passed in order to have explained to them within the talks building why they were not entitled to take part in the negotiations? Newspaper after newspaper played straight into their hands by showing misleading pictures which suggested quite the opposite of the reality.

Does the Secretary of State accept our acknowledgement and welcome of the progress that has been made this week while at the same time we add our condolences to those of the Minister of State to the family of Garda McCabe? Does he agree that, whatever the individual motivations may be, the persistence of a culture of blaming and finger pointing will be inimical to the talks process? Does he agree that the talks process will be greatly helped by the presence of Senator Mitchell and his team? It is unfortunate that the failure of the constitutional parties to reach agreement has turned attention away from the crucial fact that the absence of a ceasefire is keeping Sinn Fein away from the talks and that we would like that ceasefire to occur as soon as possible.

I am grateful for that assurance, which comes as no surprise, and also for what the hon. Lady said at the beginning.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the disbursement of the European peace programme grant aid to Northern Ireland. [30926]

A total of £5.53 million has been paid out to approved projects and funding bodies. This consists of £4.147 million from the European Commission and £1.383 million of matching funding.

What external monitoring procedures has the Minister put in place to monitor progress and to have a view to applying for an extension to the funding regime beyond 1998? Will he give assurances that he sees the grant aid programme both now and in the future as additional to existing Northern Ireland funding regimes?

It will be possible for the funding to continue—we hope beyond the period that has already been approved. There is a substantial arrangement for measuring accountability. Not only has a novel delivery structure been established but the House of Commons, through the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, will be able to monitor because part of the additional funding which is provided comes from the Northern Ireland block. In addition, the European Parliament has its own arrangements for monitoring expenditure. So there are many and considerable arrangements for monitoring and scrutiny.

Does the Minister agree that, despite his confidence that the monitoring arrangements are right, the European Parliament does not have a great record in monitoring European fraud and that the novel arrangements for distributing the money leave many gates open for misappropriation? Can we have an assurance that, when the funds run out, councils and councillors will not be left with extra expenses when community bodies and business men run away from their commitments because they do not have their hands on public money?

No Finance Minister can give a copper-bottomed guarantee about what will happen in the future when funds may no longer be available. There will be a review of priorities and financial needs at that time. The monitoring programme and the monitoring committee, which is local in Northern Ireland, will be well seized of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. There will not be dependency on European Parliament structures alone—local arrangements and the responsibilities that the House has in monitoring the use of public money will also be taken into account.

What action is the Minister pursuing to ensure that all such expenditure is directed to produce the most beneficial and enduring long-term effects? What steps is he taking to dissuade the Northern Ireland Office from its disproportionate concentration on grand capital schemes, rather than seeking to make progress with the agreement of the other social partners and organisations in Northern Ireland?

The bodies that approve the expenditure decide who the beneficiaries of the funding will be. That is inevitably the case. It is essential that as much of the money as possible provides schemes that are of lasting benefit to the people of Northern Ireland and are not superficial. It is the objective of the Northern Ireland department responsible for these matters to ensure that that happens.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in constructing the information super-highway in Northern Ireland. [30927]

Significant progress has been made in developing an information super-highway in Northern Ireland. In early 1994, a major project was initiated by the business development service on behalf of Northern Ireland departments, their agencies and the wider public sector. In February 1996, the information society initiative was launched by my noble Friend Baroness Denton.

What plans does the Minister have to ensure that every citizen of Northern Ireland has access to the information super-highway? What help is he giving schools to ensure that they can plug in to the information super-highway? What steps is he taking to ensure that terrorists do not abuse the information super-highway for their own purposes?

The business development service, in conjunction with consultants, is carrying out a telecommunications strategy study to ensure that the very best communications infrastructure is available to Government Departments well into the 21st century. In Northern Ireland, Cable Tel is in the process of establishing a broad-band infrastructure, which it is hoped will meet the hon. Gentleman's needs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering the implications for the education sector. The use of these facilities by terrorists is a matter that has to be pursued on a case-by-case basis. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the difficulty of constraint.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me how Sinn Fein-IRA is able to have a world wide web address? The cause of nationalism has been promoted using the world wide web. Can we ensure that the cause of peace is given an equal opportunity to be promoted on the world wide web? Will the Government ensure that the British Government's point of view, and that of the Unionists, are also put out on the world wide web?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Northern Ireland Office is making use of the facility to get across information across about the achievements of Northern Ireland. Political parties will have to judge their use of the facilities. I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the operation of the drinking water supply system in Northern Ireland. [30929]

The Department of the Environment's water service assesses the drinking water supply system on a continuous operational basis. A water resource strategy has recently been completed and reviewed in the light of experience of the 1995 drought.

As the vast majority of Northern Ireland's local councils oppose the fluoridation of drinking water in Northern Ireland, will the Minister assure the House that the will of the people and of elected representatives will prevail in this matter, rather than that of unelected and unrepresentative board members?

Boards must take into consideration district councils' views, but they must also consider their duty to improve the health and social well-being of their populations. Until I have considered the requests from health and social services boards in detail, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the consultation exercise, but it is vital for them to demonstrate appropriate and thorough consultation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the incidence of BSE in the Northern Ireland herd for the most recent year for which figures are available. [30930]

In 1995, there were 170 cases of BSE in Northern Ireland.

Mercifully, Northern Ireland is largely free of BSE, but what steps have been taken in the framework document to ensure that herds in Northern Ireland can be certified BSE-free? While I am on my feet, may I ask the Minister to comment on the revelations in the science magazine Nature, published today, that Britain's exports of contaminated feed doubled after that contaminated feed had been banned in this country? Was that not criminally irresponsible?

I do not believe in commenting on texts that I have not read. It is in the interests of Northern Ireland producers that we have an electronic system of tracing beasts back to the farm of their birth. We can identify the life history of every animal, including whether it has ever been associated with a herd infected with BSE. That is a great advantage, which I trust will serve the interests of Northern Ireland producers quickly in terms of having the ban lifted.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate our dependence on beef exports in Northern Ireland, and that we cannot survive this blanket ban much longer, especially not until other regions of the UK catch up with our traceability records? What does the European Union expect from us in Northern Ireland? What is its criterion? What assurances does it need? Will he seek to enable Northern Ireland to meet those assurances as soon as possible?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and know how greatly he is concerned about these matters. Seventy per cent. of all Northern Ireland-produced beef is exported, not just over the water, but outside the UK. It is a matter of enormous importance to Northern Ireland. It has been accepted reluctantly that Northern Ireland must take its place with the whole of the UK in getting the ban lifted, but there are considerable advantages, which I have just alluded to, that Northern Ireland can pray in aid. The European Union has never given clear criteria to the lifting of the ban, but it is clear that it expects more extensive culling to take place. The Government believe—indeed, they know—that there is no scientific justification for the ban and they have presented their eradication plan to the Commission. I am confident that Northern Ireland will be well placed to meet any criteria that may eventually be defined. They should be defined straight away. All farmers throughout the UK receive the same compensation for 30-month and above stock that is compulsorily slaughtered.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some optimism among Ulster Farmers Union members that the framework document for BSE's eradication will be accepted by the European Union? That will be of advantage to Northern Ireland farmers, because 90 per cent. of their herds are grass fed, there is a low incidence of BSE, and the tracing system is in place. If the framework document is accepted, and if herds in Northern Ireland meet the conditions in that document, will the Secretary of State support the lifting of the ban in Northern Ireland before other regions of the United Kingdom?

If the framework document for eradication is met, it will be applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom—although not every region may benefit at the same time. As I have said, it seems as though Northern Ireland will be able to benefit much sooner. I look forward to that occurring, as Northern Ireland is very well placed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the state of primary school budgets. [30932]

The total funding available for delegation to primary schools, including resources for the primary 1 initiative in 1996–97, is estimated at £275 million. That represents an increase of 4.55 per cent. from 1995–96.

I have visited some 20 primary schools in Strangford in the past three months. Is the Minister aware that there is a decline in morale in primary schools, that many schools are operating on deficit budgets, that primary school teachers are being made redundant this year, that pupil-teacher ratios are worsening, that management committee members are considering resigning and that teachers face an increasing administration burden? Will the Minister, therefore, urgently reappraise the financing of primary school education in Northern Ireland? Will he redirect some of the existing funding within his Department and the education area boards to our primary schools?

While I do not for a moment deny that schools in Northern Ireland suffer the same difficulties as schools elsewhere, I think that the right hon. Gentleman paints a very black picture. I remind him that, in the past four years, the capital per capita allocations to primary schools in Northern Ireland have risen by 14 per cent. That is demonstrated by an improving parent-teacher ratio in the primary sector from 23.2:1 in the late 1980s to 21.6:1 in 1993–94. The provisional figures for 1994–95 show a further improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio to 20.8:1. That proves that conditions in Northern Ireland primary schools are improving.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [30952]

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.

Is it not increasingly clear that the Government's firm and resolute management of the British economy has created the best performing economy in Europe? Would it not be a crying tragedy if that were thrown away by tying up British industry in red tape and by transferring our monetary policy—and, indeed, our gold reserves—to Frankfurt, which is what would follow a Labour Government's subscription to the social chapter and a single currency?

The economy is doing very well. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's analysis of the impact of the Labour party's alternative policies. In the past few days, we have had two separate illustrations of how well the economy is doing: first, the excellent news about jobs; secondly, the excellent news about inflation. We are now in the fifth year of steady growth, and that is what will deliver continuing prosperity.

Will the Prime Minister confirm the following? Is it true that two of his Back Benchers gave the Government an ultimatum on Monday that, unless they received firm assurances that the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital would be replaced by a full emergency unit, they would withdraw support from the Government; secondly, that the ultimatum was to expire last night; thirdly, that they then met the Health Secretary; and, fourthly, that they now say that they have been given those assurances and have withdrawn the ultimatum? Is that substantially true? If it is, is it not a disreputable way in which to run a Government?

No, it is not substantially true, and I have to say that there is no possibility of the Government responding to approaches of that sort from any hon. Member. We do not respond to such activities and we will not respond to such activities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured.

No, Madam Speaker, I am not reassured. Which of the facts that I have just listed does the right hon. Gentleman dispute? We know that the ultimatum was given. That is a matter of record. We know that the ultimatum was withdrawn, and the two Conservative Members concerned say that they have been given the assurance that the full emergency unit will now be given. What are we to make of this? Was it one of life's happy coincidences?

The right hon. Gentleman is distorting and misunderstanding, and I shall try to explain it to him. A lot of people have made representations about Edgware—local medical people, local churches, my hon. Friends and many others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened carefully, but he has made it clear that we will not retain the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital. We will not retain it, and it is the gravamen of the charge that that is what he was asked to do. The policy that we are following is the policy that we have been pursuing for some time.

Closing hospitals.

Not closing hospitals; providing better facilities—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) must come to order.

for hospitals in London and elsewhere; facilities utterly run down when the Government took power in 1979.

The Prime Minister has not answered the question about whether such an assurance has been given. [Interruption.] He has not answered it. When he gets to his feet again, let him say, yes or no, whether such an assurance was given. [Interruption.] Have Conservative Members any idea of the anger that people feel at the way in which decisions are taken when such closures are happening all round the country? [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), along with other hon. Members, must come to order. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) must also come to order.

What about the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)?

Order. I have just called the hon. Member for Thurrock to order.

I think that most people know that the way to save the health service is not to have Back-Bench Tory Members of Parliament pressuring a weak Government, but the election of a Government committed to the NHS.

The right hon. Gentleman's cheap insults do not provide arguments or enlightenment. I answered the question earlier. The problem for the right hon. Gentleman is that he did not get the answer that he wanted.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [30953]

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

In view of the disturbing and increasing number of child abuse cases, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do all within his power to get to the root of the problem, thereby to prevent such tragedies from happening in future?

I can give that assurance. I am personally horrified by some of the events that have been reported. Children in residential care are self-evidently among the most vulnerable members of our society. We discussed the matter this morning at some length. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health have been considering what action to take, and we agreed their proposals this morning in Cabinet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is finalising arrangements for an inquiry to address what happened in north Wales, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is to invite Sir William Utting to assess whether the safeguards now in place, which have been much tightened in recent years, are adequate to protect children and are being properly enforced. My right hon. Friends will set out their detailed proposals, the terms of reference, the name of the judge and other matters in a full statement to the House early next week. I feel that the House would wish to know the direction in which the Government propose to take this matter.

That answer, at least, will be very welcome.

It would be a lengthy business to refute all the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman just uttered. I shall use just one illustration. If the Referendum Bill was designed solely as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, why did one of his hon. Friends vote for it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two!"] Two. That is a dangerous split in a party of that size.

Will my right hon. Friend allow me to support what he said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition? Will he confirm that the agreement that the Secretary of State for Health made between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) was not the retention of an accident and emergency department in its fullest extent, but an alternative that the Secretary of State has been discussing with us for the past six months with regard to a casualty unit, which instead of having nurses would have qualified doctors 24 hours a day, and that when patients were in a stable condition they might have to be moved?

rose—

More.

Order.

What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said is that the matter has been discussed with him—and, I have to say, with a large number of other groups. It has been under consideration for many months, as my right hon. Friend has made clear on a number of occasions. The demands that it is said were made were not met by the Government and would not be met by them, either in this instance or in any instance in the future. I hope that that is entirely clear to the leader of the Labour party and everyone else.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June. [30954]

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that, on Tuesday, he saw no problem with the financing of the anti-European campaign of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) by Sir James Goldsmith, but yesterday—Wednesday—he and the Chief Whip ordered the hon. Member for Stafford to confess the error of his ways and stop taking the money? What caused the Prime Minister to change his mind?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should see exactly what was said. It was clearly unacceptable for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to accept funds from the principal figure behind a list of candidates likely to stand against the Conservative party in the general election. My hon. Friend has made it clear that he will not receive any funding from that source, and I congratulate him on his decision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, last month, the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body met in the village of Adair in County Limerick, and that I was accompanied throughout the visit by a Garda officer, Gerry McCabe? Is he aware that, last week, in that same beautiful village, that outstanding officer was gunned down by an IRA gang? Will he join me in sending our deepest sympathy to the widow and family of Gerry McCabe, and to Commissioner Culligan and all his colleagues in the Garda Siochana?

I am sure that the whole House will wish to echo my right hon. Friend's words about Mr. McCabe and his brutal murder. That murder, and the murder of another Garda officer—which, I understand, Sinn Fein has yet again refused to condemn—only demonstrates even more clearly precisely why Sinn Fein cannot join in the talks that are currently taking place until such time as there is a clear-cut and unequivocal ceasefire, and we can be confident that it is going to be maintained. That is the British Government's position and the Irish Government's position, and it will not change.