To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest political developments in the peace process. [2509]

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in the multi-party talks in Northern Ireland. [2513]

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of all parties in Northern Ireland to discuss the peace process. [2516]

Having agreed rules of procedure and settled the agenda for the remainder of the opening plenary session, the two Governments and the other talks participants are accordingly now addressing proposals regarding the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself from those negotiations.

Is it not time that the IRA stopped teasing about a possible ceasefire and reinstated one on a permanent basis? Is there any information that the Secretary of State would like to share with the House on that matter? Should not the public be warned, certainly on the mainland, that the IRA will almost certainly try to commit a terrorist crime, or perhaps more, in the period leading up to Christmas?

It is not merely time but overdue that the IRA should do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is abundantly clear that preparations for further attacks were being undertaken at the time of the ceasefire. It is desirable that Sinn Fein should, on proper terms—on terms equal to those that apply to everyone else—be included in negotiations. However, the position of the Irish Government and ourselves has been made very clear, which, so far as our Parliament is concerned, is incorporated in the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996.

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating George Mitchell on the excellent work that he has done on the talks, and especially on bringing all the parties together? If President Clinton should award Senator Mitchell high office in the United States, what plans does the Secretary of State have for a new chairman?

I am glad to share in the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman rightly considers to be due. We have all been extremely grateful for Senator Mitchell's chairmanship, which we very much admire. We wish him the very best—although that is outside our jurisdiction. Naturally, we also wish the best for ourselves.

Does the Secretary of State realise that one of the problems has been delays by the Government in opening all-party talks after the first IRA ceasefire? Does he agree that, if we are to make progress and achieve all-party talks and another ceasefire, we must at least maintain lines of communication, confidence-building measures and a hope of change in the six counties? Does he agree that all-party talks have no meaning unless all parties—I mean all parties—are around the table as part of the discussions and negotiations?

I certainly do not accept the "foot-dragging" argument, which I hear occasionally, that somehow the British Government are responsible for the abandonment of the ceasefire, in February 1996, because we did not respond to the ceasefire, in August 1994. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sinn Fein was not admitted to the talks because it did not satisfy us—or any reasonable person—that what it meant by its words was what it was prepared to secure by its action—by the things that it did and, just as importantly, by the things that it did not do.

Did the Secretary of State read reports of President Clinton's words last weekend, when he said that a ceasefire had to be genuine and permanent? Does the Secretary of State agree with that? Does he agree with the obvious truth, which is clear to everyone in Northern Ireland, that there is not the slightest likelihood that Sinn Fein will meet those requirements, and that there is now a clear need to move on to substantive talks without that? I should tell the Secretary of State that we are deeply frustrated by the Government's unwillingness to move forward on that basis, and that there is considerable and growing unease in Northern Ireland at the Secretary of State's inability to express himself publicly as clearly as President Clinton did.

I would have thought that it was well known from what the Prime Minister said and from what I have said that there has to be a ceasefire that is genuine and permanent, and, what is more, one that is intended to be genuine and permanent. Of course that is right. We have to guard against what one might call a tactical ceasefire to secure advance which will then be followed by a return to violence, or the threat of a return to violence, if that seems expedient.

With regard to the possibility of Sinn Fein re-entering the process, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it will require not only the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire but Sinn Fein establishing a commitment to exclusively peaceful means which will take some time, albeit one which one cannot specify in advance?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He recites the language of paragraph 8 of the ground rules paper referred to in legislation as a Command Paper. After what happened in South Quay, in Manchester and at the Thiepval barracks at Lisburn, as the Prime Minister said, mere words cannot be enough. I am happy enough to adopt language which I think the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has used in the past, namely that Sinn Fein must commit itself in word and deed to the path of peace and democracy—I stress "and deed".

By what mechanism does my right hon. and learned Friend hope to secure in the current talks procedure the physical elimination of terrorist weapons that are currently illegally held?

I cannot secure it but I can facilitate it by legislation that will provide for a scheme to be set up by the Secretary of State, which will enable terrorist weapons to be got rid of permanently and which will secure that in the narrow act of implementing the scheme—by bringing forward weapons for that purpose—people shall be protected from prosecution for offences of possessing unlawful weapons. That is the character of the legislation that we hope to introduce very shortly.

With regard to the on-going peace process in Northern Ireland, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that, if taken as a whole, the territory between west and north Belfast is the very epicentre of social and economic deprivation in the north of Ireland. That being so, I ask him once again whether he will encourage the university of Ulster and the thousands of people who live on either side of the peace line by giving the go-ahead for the development of a university campus at Springvale.

I very much agree that the area represented by the hon. Gentleman has far too high a level of deprivation of one kind and another. That is why I am especially glad that only last week the Japanese ambassador opened the new Fujitsu Telecoms (Ireland) factory, which will provide 200 jobs, 100 of which will I think be provided almost straight away. The matter of the Springvale complex is more complex. A number of considerations have to be weighed, not least the effect on the provision of education throughout Northern Ireland and the variations that the university has made to its own proposals and those which it may make in the future.

The Secretary of State referred to the terms of the Command Paper of 16 April: that there should be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of 31 August 1994. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the term "unequivocal" refers to the restoration, not to the ceasefire? Does he also agree that any new ceasefire should be not only complete in nature, but permanent in duration and should be accompanied by tangible evidence of good faith through the immediate handing over of a significant amount of guns and Semtex to evidence that the declaration of the ceasefire was not merely words but credible?

The Government's position on the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is based four square on what has come to be called the Mitchell compromise approach, to be found in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the international body's report. The hon. and learned Gentleman is familiar with those paragraphs, so I shall not make my reply unduly long.

Would an unequivocal ceasefire delivered by the IRA, accompanied by statements similar to those made by the Unionist paramilitary groups, elicit a new response from the British and Irish Governments?

That would obviously be helpful. I do not want to add to what I have just said to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). We have to consider all the circumstances, including the words used, what is happening on the ground and what is not happening on the ground. In other words, one has to form a sensible judgment that is as well founded as it can be, taking account of all the available circumstances.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Home Secretary's decision this week to repatriate further prisoners to the Republic of Ireland will be widely welcomed? In the same spirit of building confidence in the peace process in both communities, will the Secretary of State exercise the utmost compassion in maximising home leave before Christmas and new year?

It is a well-established principle here and in Northern Ireland that prisoners ought to be able to serve their sentences as near as is practicable to their families, for obvious reasons connected with rehabilitation, among others. I certainly follow that principle, and I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary does as well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the decommissioning of terrorist weapons in Northern Ireland. [2510]

The possession of terrorist weapons in Northern Ireland is wholly unacceptable. Accordingly, the Government will bring forward legislation of an enabling character to provide the statutory foundation for detailed decommissioning arrangements.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is still vital that, before coming to the negotiating table, IRA-Sinn Fein must be required to decommission their illegally held weapons? Does he also agree that it is highly unlikely that they will consent to do so for the simple reason that their power base is maintained by the bullet and the bomb, not the ballot box?

I very much agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. It is of course because of that that we are determined that there shall not be a threat hanging over those at the conference table and represented by one party with friends outside the door holding a pile of Semtex and other armaments, which they threaten to use unless a settlement that is satisfactory to them is reached. That would be an unacceptable threat in any democracy—I remind everyone that Northern Ireland is part of our democracy.

Does the Secretary of State agree that after six months of talks it is intolerable that those of us who sit around the table have merely been offered the gesture of enabling legislation, at some date yet to be determined, leading to the setting up of a disarmament and verification commission? What objection does the Secretary of State have to the Ulster Unionist proposal that those who will form that commission should be identified and brought together as a commission designate and enabled to conduct some of the preparatory work that will be necessary if the process of decommissioning is to begin within the lifetime of this Parliament?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that there should be legislation enabling such a scheme as quickly as possible, and that the scheme should be set up as quickly as possible. These are not easy matters, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He also knows that a scheme-enabling Bill is well advanced and that it is our intention to introduce it very quickly. He also knows that we are giving careful attention to the proposal that he and his party have made. His purpose in doing so is the same as ours—we want to get on as quickly as possible and to ensure that no time is unnecessarily lost before a commission can effectively be put in place once the legislation is passed.

Has the Secretary of State been made aware of talks between the Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, and IRA-Sinn Fein in recent days? Does he agree that the real proof of any ceasefire will be the handing up of the illegal guns and Semtex that have brought so much terror and murder to our Province? Does he further agree that the policy of compromise of which he speaks has brought nothing to Northern Ireland but tears, sorrow and mayhem for 25 years?

I do not agree that it is a policy of compromise which has brought to Northern Ireland the misery which the hon. Gentleman describes so well and has experienced himself. What has brought that has been the evil and undemocratic processes and policies of the IRA and of its counterparts on the loyalist side—we must never forget that.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the political negotiations and the entire political process should not be made hostage to the decommissioning issue? Does he further agree that the Mitchell report should and can be the only basis on which that matter is resolved? And will he assure the House that the two Governments will do all in their power to ensure that we move into the three-strand negotiations without further delay, further prevarication or further attempts by anyone to rewrite the Mitchell report?

I do not know whether anybody has tried to rewrite the Mitchell report. It would be a difficult task and we certainly do not wish it to be done. We think that the Mitchell compromise approach is the right one. We do not want any obstacle placed in the way of entering the three-stranded discussions, save that there has to be a clear understanding as to how the question of illegally held arms shall be dealt with—illegally held arms held by those who will have issued an unequivocal ceasefire and then sought to be admitted to the talks. That cannot be brushed aside. There may be more than one way of coping with it. If we can find a way by which it can be coped with satisfactorily that will facilitate our entry into the three-stranded substantive process, we shall be very glad to achieve it.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while one group believes that it can have its way by using firearms and bombs, others are inevitably led to believe that that is the only mechanism through which they can retaliate? The danger is, of course, that many of the illegal weapons are also used for what can be described only as gangster activity. Such a complex situation makes it right for the Government to insist that no political party should be allowed to address the issue of democracy unless it distances itself completely and irrevocably from weapons.

I agree completely with my hon. Friend.

I welcome the Secretary of State's comments in answer to this question and assure him of the Opposition's support for the legislation that he has proposed. It is crucial and we shall give it fair passage. It would be helpful if he confirmed that his approach to decommissioning will be in line not only with the Mitchell principles but with the joint statement by the British and Irish Governments of 1 October. It would also clarify an answer he gave to an earlier question if he explained the role of the verification committee. That might help answer questions about the timing of multi-party talks moving towards a three-stranded approach. Further information on the verification committee might help the House.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's expression of support for the legislation, the character of which she knows. The two Governments' draft conclusions were put forward exactly as they were expressed and they are intended not to be an end but to be a means to an end. Obviously, we are paying careful attention to the responses that the parties have given and are giving to those conclusions. What we want to do is what I just tried to describe to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). We want to find a means by which decommissioning can be disposed satisfactorily that will lead us as quickly as possible into discussion on the three strands—the substantive discussions. We will continue to try to offer ways forward and continue to listen to the responses that are made.

Have not all law-abiding citizens throughout the UK the right to expect that no party will be admitted to substantive talks without first repudiating unequivocally the use of force and the possession of weapons?

Effectively, yes. All parties have to sign up, if they are to proceed with negotiations, to the Mitchell principles, which include precisely what my hon. Friend has said. That is axiomatic, really, in any democracy. The technical position is that Sinn Fein cannot come in until there has been an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. As I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made clear on many an occasion, in the light of events this year, there has to be more than words. There has to be, in the language used by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), a commitment to the path of peace.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on compensation arrangements for those who lose their jobs as a result of the new ferry introduced between Rathlin island and Ballycastle. [2511]

The forthcoming introduction of a new ferry service will mean the withdrawal of subsidy from the existing operators. As a result they are most unlikely to continue with a ferry service and they have no entitlement to compensation for that eventuality. Should any employee of either operator not be offered employment by the provider of the new service, that employee is at liberty to seek compensation from that provider under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

I thank the Minister, but surely he must accept that there is a moral responsibility to ensure that those people living on the island who will lose their jobs as a direct result of the introduction of the ferry are compensated. Tommy Cecil runs the Iona ferry, his family have run the ferry for more than 100 years and he has kept the link going between Ballycastle and Rathlin when no money had been spent on the harbours and the crossing was dangerous and attracted no subsidy. Is the Minister really saying that we will throw those people on the scrap heap and not allow them compensation?

The Government's purpose is to provide a safer, more reliable and more comfortable ferry service. We are spending, with our European neighbours, around £7.25 million to improve the harbours. We have paid in subsidy around £300,000 to the operators since 1991 and we hope that when the new ferry service is brought in, six new full-time jobs will be created, all of which will go to the islanders. That will bring in £80,000 of permanent employment to Rathlin island.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that Rathlin island is the only large island off Northern Ireland that is inhabited. In 1900, it had more than 1,000 inhabitants and that figure has now been reduced to 200. I am sure that he is also aware that never, in all the time up until 1991, did the Government do anything to facilitate the Rathlin islanders getting to Ballycastle and back. They did that on their own initiative. Does the Minister agree that Mr. Cecil should be congratulated on how hard he tried, and managed, to keep a passageway open from the island to Ballycastle? He sacrificed much—lives have been lost on that passage and we should keep that in mind—and he did so willingly and gladly. Mr. Cecil will lose his employment and there will not be jobs for everybody who was employed. Does not the Minister feel that he has an obligation, having taken away—through a large subsidy—that man's right to run that passageway, to do the decent and morally right thing and give him adequate compensation?

There are two operators operating the current ferry from Rathlin to Ballycastle and Mr. Cecil is only one of them. He is the only person asking for compensation. The new contract for the new ferry requires the vessel to be stationed overnight at Rathlin island and that means that all the new jobs will go to Rathlin island people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review his proposals for the valuation and rating of docks and harbours in Northern Ireland. [2512]

It is necessary to revise the current provisions relating to docks and harbours in Northern Ireland in order to bring the rateable values of these undertakings into line with real current values and to maintain relativity with all other property included in the revaluation.

Will the Minister consider delaying the imposition of the new rates in Northern Ireland until he has received the conclusions of the pilot studies here in Great Britain and thus avoid variations in the rates between one part of the United Kingdom and another? Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to study some papers that I have in my possession?

I shall be delighted to consider and study the papers that the right hon. Gentleman has. Indeed, I look forward to seeing them. The matters discussed in Great Britain are not relevant to the revaluation of ports in Northern Ireland at this point in time, but I shall be glad to consider the information that he has and see what bearing it has on the proposals being considered for Northern Ireland.

Will my right hon. Friend make available to the House an assessment of the impact of the valuation on the improved harbour at Church bay, on Rathlin island, and on the improvements in Ballycastle? Will he consider adding to the kindness of his colleague the Under-Secretary of State, who met a deputation led by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), to discuss the future of those who have been running the ferry between the two harbours, and see whether Richard Green, Tommy Cecil and others can have the opportunity of gaining personally from their service in the past, rather than losing out when a big subsidy goes in?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), will meet the people whom he mentioned later this afternoon, so the discussion will take place within a matter of hours.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with Commissioner Kinnock about transport links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [2515]

None.

Will the Minister confirm that the Stranraer to Larne route is vital and is part of the trans-European network designated by the Commission? Will he join his colleague the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), and travel from Belfast to the right hon. Gentleman's ancestral home? If he did, he would find two bottlenecks, one at Girvan and one at Maybole. That would be especially true this afternoon as the heavy lorries will be joined by the buses carrying Celtic and Rangers supporters to the match in Glasgow. After that, will the hon. Gentleman stop off in Edinburgh and tell the Secretary of State for Scotland that it is far beyond time for Girvan and Maybole to have the bypasses that they deserve?

I shall be happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit his constituency, and to pass on his comments to the Scottish Office Minister with whom those responsibilities lie.

Does the Minister accept that if we are to maximise the use of the ferry services between Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, we must have good-quality approach roads and cross-city links to our ports in the Province? Will he undertake that when discussing the trans-European networks with the Commissioner, he will seek to maximise support for the upgrading of those roads? Can he tell us today when we shall see the completion of the A26 and the west link, and when and if he will advance the start date for dualling the A8 between Con's corner and Larne, and for improving the A2 from Belfast to Carrickfergus?

I am happy to confirm that the next stage of the A26 dualling is to start virtually in the next week or so. The A8 Belfast to Larne road is a priority road for us. It is also a trans-European network project, as agreed at the December 1994 European Council in Essen. It is in our 15-year programme to improve the A8, and I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments about the importance of our main roads to the ports in Northern Ireland.

As we are talking about the vital transport links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has the Minister seen the press reports suggesting that the future of the British Airways service between Heathrow and Belfast may be jeopardised by conditions attached to the proposed alliance between BA and American Airlines? Is he also aware that in a letter to me, although denying such an overt threat, the chief executive of BA refused to guarantee the future of that vital service? What steps is the Minister taking to make it plain to BA and to his colleagues at the Department of Transport that whatever the merits of the proposed alliance with American Airlines, the future of one of the principal links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland must not be compromised?

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important matter. I give him an assurance that members of my Department will discuss those issues at the appropriate level with British Airways.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the clear-up rate for recorded crimes in each of the last five years. [2517]

The clear-up rates for total recorded crime in Northern Ireland during the 1991–95 period were: 1991—36 per cent., 1992—34 per cent., 1993—36 per cent., 1994—36 per cent., 1995—36 per cent.

Can the Minister say when we shall get some action on the White Paper on policing in Northern Ireland?

The White Paper on policing in Northern Ireland has been published. I should very much like legislation to be introduced at the earliest opportunity to implement the ideas in that White Paper, but that depends on legislative time being available.

While sharing concern that the clear-up rate for recorded crime is just about a third, does the Minister share my concern about continuing unrecorded crime? Specifically, is he concerned about organised boycott of traders? Is he concerned about those who have regularly blocked legal parades, even when such parades have been declared so in courts of law?

Of course it is true that recorded crime represents only that crime which is reported to the police, and there is always an unreported amount of crime which is not recorded but which is taken into account. Yes, I am very concerned about the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions. All illegal acts of any kind in Northern Ireland are to be deplored, and it is the duty of the police and the courts to uphold the rule of law.

Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) said, to improve the crime figures it is important that we maintain the momentum regarding the police. The White Paper on the police was much delayed and now seems to have disappeared without trace—it is not in the legislative programme. We were promised a fundamental review of the police under the new Chief Constable, Mr. Flanagan. That was promised in the summer, but it has not yet been published. Is it not important, in the Government's view, that we maintain the momentum on the police, linked with crime figures and everything else to do with law and order in Northern Ireland?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course we should continue to propose ideas for the more effective and efficient management of the police system in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, as will the House, that the fact that the Provisional IRA ended its ceasefire on 9 February 1996 has significantly changed the review of the resources of the Royal Ulster Constabulary because we are back in the business of protecting lives and property from terrorist attack. Nevertheless, ideas continue to be developed and will be implemented.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to increase employment in Northern Ireland over the next 12 months. [2521]

The Government's strategy is to create an economic environment in which business can prosper, to help local firms become more competitive in world markets, to promote enterprise, and to attract tourists and high-quality international investment projects. This approach has delivered record levels of employment in Northern Ireland; we shall continue with it.

That is all very interesting, but it is not good enough. Does the Minister not reflect that the one thing that unites Protestant unemployed and Catholic unemployed is the fact that they are unemployed? Will he explain to us why the Government are acquiescing in a situation where there are twice as many long-term unemployed people in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom? What is to be done about that?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to dream as much as he likes, but he should read what is going on in Northern Ireland. Had he done so yesterday, he might have been more cautious in what he has just said. The unemployment figures announced yesterday show a headline reduction of more than 8,000 and a seasonally adjusted reduction of 3,300, and constitute the lowest level for 15 years. In addition, there are 573,090 people in employment—the highest June figure on record. The hon. Gentleman really does not know what he is talking about.

Is the Minister aware that we are interested not only in creating new employment, but in preserving existing employment? Is he further aware that a delegation from Gallaher is visiting the House today to point out the severe effect that the high level of taxation on tobacco has had on the production of cigarettes and tobacco in Northern Ireland? Although I do not smoke myself, I am concerned about employment in that industry. Given that so much of the product is immediately smuggled back for resale—with a consequent loss to the Exchequer—will the Chancellor of the Exchequer also take note of my question?

I had some difficulty in hearing all of the hon. Gentleman's question, but if I heard him correctly, his concerns are shared by others. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place, and I am sure that he listened to the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November. [2539]

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.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the drop of more than 40,000 in the latest monthly unemployment count—which, I understand, is the largest monthly decrease for two years—illustrates yet again the success of the Government's policies in promoting job creation? Does he agree that if United Kingdom employers had additional costs inflicted on them by the EU, that would put in jeopardy the downward trend in unemployment in our country, which has been going on for three years and stands in stark contrast with many other EU countries?

My hon. Friend is entirely right, both about the welcome trend in unemployment and about the fact that unemployment is falling here in a way that cannot be seen anywhere else in the continent of Europe. That is not unrelated to the fact that we have avoided the burdens on business that so many of our partners have accepted. Of course, those burdens would have been accepted by the Opposition.

Does the Prime Minister agree that today's inflation rise, together with the sharp rise in long-term interest rates, should set the warning lights flashing? How does he square that with the promise that he made just a few months ago that he would meet his inflation target by the end of this year?

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I know that the retail prices index figures are complex, but I think that he has failed to understand the impact of this morning's figures. I will explain to him what has happened, and he can then explain it to his Back Benchers. The figures are calculated year on year, and there was a quite exceptional one-month fall last October. That means that the 12-month year-on-year figure looks artificially high. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that that will correct itself over the months ahead and that we expect to meet our target.

I do not think that we have ever heard a more ridiculous excuse for a rise in inflation figures. If the inflation figures were so good, why did interest rates have to go up? They went up because of the worry about inflation. Have we not heard it all before? We heard it all before the previous election and we heard it all before 1987, when the Government said that an economic miracle was under way. Will the Prime Minister answer these specific questions? On interest rates and inflation, will he confirm that Britain is now 11th out of 15 in Europe? Do any of our main competitors outside Europe have as high interest rates or inflation as Britain?

I begin to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman truly does not understand; he is not being perverse—he genuinely does not understand. I will explain the position to him gently and easily. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor raised interest rates to prevent inflation from rising, not as a result of existing inflation. To hear lectures on inflation from the right hon. Gentleman, when the lowest inflation achieved by his party in government was 7.5 per cent. and millions remember when it was 27 per cent., and when the inflation figure today is a statistical aberration because of a dramatic fall last year, only illustrates the fact that the Labour party is totally incapable not only of running the economy but even of understanding it.

rose—(Interruption.]

Order.

The House will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not dispute that we were 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation. If he disputes it, let him come to the Dispatch Box and say that the figure is wrong. The House will listen to him when he rises to his feet and tells us that 11th out of 15 is wrong. The simple fact, as on every other matter, is that when he said that he would cut taxes, he raised them, when he said—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like this because it is the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] They want more, so let us give them more—[Interruption.]

Order. This barracking must stop. Other hon. Members have questions on the Order Paper and I want to call them.

Let the Prime Minister dispute any of the following facts. He said before the general election that he would cut tax, and he raised it. Does he dispute that? He said that he would eliminate public borrowing, and he doubled public sector debt. Does he dispute that? He said that he would lick inflation, and it has risen. Does he dispute that? If he does not dispute any of those facts, or the fact that we are 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation, why should anyone believe a word that he says on the economy?

I had fondly suspected today that the right hon. Gentleman might have broken with tradition and mentioned the fall in unemployment, which his party is supposed to care about—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that the October inflation figures were the fourth best that we have known in October since the war. It is ridiculous for him to talk to us about taxation and to proceed as he did today, when the deputy leader of his party has said that Labour

"shouldn't follow the Government down the road of cutting the basic rate of tax"

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November. [2540]

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

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the European intergovernmental conference he will block any proposal further to erode our right of veto? Is he fully aware that signing the social chapter is not only expensive in itself but would render Britain powerless to avoid becoming uncompetitive as Europe introduces more and more imposts? The Labour party will never understand that, which is one of the reasons why we shall win the next general election.

I can certainly and willingly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The social chapter is a pipeline bulging with potential new burdens on business, all of which would cost jobs in the United Kingdom. As an illustration of the damage that a Labour Government would undoubtedly do, perhaps at some stage today the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would like to condemn the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Durham, who called on the Commission to take action against the United Kingdom including

"seeking unlimited fines against the UK Government".

Did the Prime Minister see the warning from Coopers and Lybrand yesterday that if we continue as we have so far the Government will be technically bankrupt by the end of next year? [Interruption.] That is what it said. The Prime Minister obviously has not read it. Let me put it to him like this: if a council had done what the Government have done and doubled its debt in six years, doubled the level of borrowing to which it had said that it would adhere two years ago and then, to win an election next year, cut its taxes to make things worse, would he regard that as responsible?

What the right hon. Gentleman said about the nation being bankrupt is just bizarre—it is just off the wall. If this is a bankrupt nation, why are all those overseas nations and overseas investors, both in Europe and beyond, investing in what he says is a bankrupt nation? I suggest that he looks at what is going on in Britain and stops taking advice from his economic advisers, who clearly know nothing about everything.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week marks the first anniversary of the death of my constituent, Leah Betts, who died as a result of taking a single Ecstasy tablet? Will he join me in paying tribute to Leah's parents, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that other young people learn the lesson of Leah's death? Will he confirm that the Government will give every support to the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), which will ensure that night clubs whose managers do not take proper action to stop drug trading will be swiftly and permanently closed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I met Mr. and Mrs. Betts some time ago and I think that the whole country remembers the tragedy that they had to endure and the courage with which they endured it. I certainly undertake to do all that I can to curb the menace of drugs and I will look most carefully at the private Member's Bill that is to be introduced. If it is at all possible to give full support to that Bill, as I anticipate that it will be, then we shall certainly do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November. [2541]

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

The Prime Minister will accept that there is still a major crisis over bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Does he accept that there has been enough dithering over the introduction of the selective cull scheme that was agreed at Florence? Will he give us a date for implementation of the scheme and say when we shall start to see an end to the problem?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday or, indeed, when I answered those questions from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield. Since the hon. Gentleman is asking precisely the same question, I am tempted to refer him to the answer I gave some time ago. The reality is that we are pursuing with the Commission proposals for relaxing the ban on the United Kingdom and the export restrictions on animals from certified herds and on those that are qualified under the beef assurance scheme. Those discussions are going on at the moment.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November. [2543]

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

The whole House will welcome the Government's decision in principle to support international action to prevent humanitarian catastrophe in central Africa. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if British troops are sent to Zaire they will go with carefully considered and clear objectives, very precise instructions and a properly determined chain of command?

I suspect that I speak for the whole House in expressing extreme concern at the situation in eastern Zaire. I believe that everyone is acutely conscious of the refugees' plight and of the literally hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people who will undoubtedly face death in the next few weeks unless urgent action is taken.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November. [2545]

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

May I enter a last-minute plea that the Prime Minister reconsider his decision about a free vote for Conservative Members of Parliament next week on the banning of guns? Why cannot those hon. Members be allowed to exercise their own consciences and decide for themselves how to vote on an issue that the public regard as extremely important?

We ought not to forget precisely what the legislation is about: the controls that we place on legally held firearms and the right of law-abiding citizens to use them responsibly. That seems to be a matter on which it is right for the Government to take a decision, as the House expected before the Cullen report was presented to it, and we have done so. Firearms legislation has not traditionally been considered on a free vote in the House and we are not inviting the House to do so on this occasion.