To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been received concerning proposed further reductions in the ACE schemes. [16359]

Representations have been made to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the four Northern Ireland party leaders, and by a number of organisations and individuals directly to my noble Friend Baroness Denton and the Training and Employment Agency. In the 1995 and 1996 public expenditure surveys, resources allocated to ACE were reduced by 25 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively, with the loss of 2,000 ACE posts each year.

At a time of continuing high unemployment in some parts of Northern Ireland, which are crying out for better training, and at a time when training has been cut in other areas, is it not wrong to cut the ACE scheme, which has provided useful training and helped unemployed people to gain employment? Is the Minister aware that further cuts will bite into the core trainers while also damaging the disabled and elderly in the social community?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he must be aware that unemployment has fallen considerably in Northern Ireland. We must consider priorities within available resources. Unemployment has fallen from 17.2 per cent. in 1986 to 9.2 per cent. now, and 53,000 people have come off the unemployment register in that time. There are 7,200 unfilled vacancies at the training and employment agency. Long-term unemployment, which is specifically important in this area, has dropped by 17.8 per cent. during the last year.

The ACE scheme has been very important and successful, dealing with long-term unemployment in all parts of Northern Ireland. It has been operating for 16 years and has consistently exceeded the targets set for it. In the light of that, and given that long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland is two to three times higher than it is in Great Britain, why have the Government used the hatchet on the ACE project, to the detriment of our long-term unemployed? Does he accept that the decision is resented throughout Northern Ireland and ought to be changed?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the cost of preserving security in Northern Ireland in the face of terrorist activity is a priority. I do not think that he is alone in resenting the fact that the cost of doing that must be borne by other programmes in the Province. That is the message that we should be getting across—that the best way of achieving the results that we want for both the long-term and the short-term unemployed is to bring about peace in the Province, with a growing economy and the creation of more jobs.

Does the Minister agree that penalising education, health and the long-term unemployed on the basis that the Government are discharging their primary function of protecting the lives and property of the citizens of Northern Ireland is entirely wrong and amounts to hostage taking? The Government are saying, "If you do not behave yourselves, or if a small section of you do not behave themselves, we shall punish the most vulnerable members of society as a whole."

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman takes that attitude. When there was a ceasefire, security requirements were being reduced and money was available as a result, I did not hear him say that we should not spend that money on education, health and employment programmes. In fact, I suspect that he welcomed our actions. The corollary is that, when security requirements are reintroduced as a result of changes in the security situation, everyone must share the pain.

Do not the cuts to the ACE schemes amount to well over 50 per cent., with a loss of 2,000 jobs? Fifty per cent. of the core jobs have also been lost, which threatens some of the ACE schemes and some vitally needed services, despite the overwhelming success of the ACE schemes and the overwhelming opposition from all the parties in Northern Ireland to the cuts. The Training and Employment Agency's review of long-term unemployment, which was due last October, has still not yet been published. Will the Minister delay implementation of further cuts until we have had a chance to consider that document?

We hope that the report will be published fairly soon. It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to make those criticisms from the Dispatch Box, but if he is saying—as he appeared to be—that we should not be making these cuts within the bloc, it behoves him to say where we should be making cuts instead. We have to decide on the priorities in the light of falling unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. There are other priorities and we have to take hard decisions at this time because of the security situation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as an Opposition spokesman, will bear his share of the responsibility for making the same message as I am.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has held with his counterparts in the Irish Government and with the representatives of Northern Ireland's political parties on the peace process; and what progress has been made. [16360]

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the development of the peace process. [16364]

There has been intensive contact with the participants in the talks, including the Irish Government. On 7 February I met the Irish Foreign Minister and we discussed several issues, including the development of the process. The talks process continues to offer the best opportunity of securing a political settlement underpinning a true and lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Although I welcome the continued efforts of both Governments to find a peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State agree that the major impediment to making progress is the continued and sustained use of violence in Northern Ireland, not least through punishment beatings and intimidation on estates and in neighbourhoods, where people—and especially young people—are being systematically abused? Is the Secretary of State aware that only last night a 19-year-old girl was abducted from a taxi rank in Armagh, held at a lamp post, covered in paint, beaten up and left with a placard around her neck? Earlier this week a 19-year-old was set about with a club with nails attached and a 12-year-old child was set about with a baseball bat by a gang of thugs. At a rate of 15 to 20 attacks per week, is not such intimidation and terror holding up the whole possibility of peaceful progress being made?

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Unfortunately that is only part of the things that are holding up the development of this process. The Chief Constable has calculated that attacks on the security forces have been taking place at an average rate of about one every 30 hours since the beginning of this year. There can be no place in a democracy for violence perpetrated for political reasons. Only if and when those who seek to participate in the talks which are continuing make it credibly clear that they have set aside violence for ever will they cease to exclude themselves.

As this may be the Secretary of State's last ever Question Time, will he take this opportunity to make an announcement today which might help to further the peace process, especially as the marching season is due to begin again next month?

I hesitate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I am looking forward to having another Question Time before I hang up these boots. I know the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes and the sincere concern that he has for the development of democracy in Northern Ireland. I made the Government's response clear two or three weeks ago in the House, when the North report was published. We accepted at once part of the recommendations. We thought it prudent—and we have been supported in this very widely thereafter—to consult up to the end of March on the remaining parts, and that is what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be concerned that there should not be a repetition in this marching season of the terrible events of last year, and I share his concern.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear in his contacts with the Irish Government that one of the reasons why so little progress has been made in the inter-party talks is the attitude that they have adopted? I am thinking particularly of statements from those close to the Irish Foreign Minister to the effect that talking to us is not worth a penny candle. The Irish Foreign Ministry's representatives constantly attempt to change the terms of the talks to enable Sinn Fein-IRA to enter them fully armed and with the capacity to continue using their weapons. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the Irish Government that if they are to make a positive contribution to the process a significant change in their policies will be required?

I do not recognise any distinction between the Irish Government's policy vis-à-vis the entry of Sinn Fein into the talks and our own. Both Governments believe and insist that there should be an unequivocal restoration of a ceasefire that is credible—that is shown to be credible. In doing that, we are merely implementing the ground rules agreed between the two Governments for the conduct of the talks. That is perfectly clear.

How can the Secretary of State think that by pursuing the conflicting views of members of the Government he can establish confidence? When Stephen Restorick was brutally murdered, the Prime Minister issued a strong statement that the person or persons who did it would be hunted and would be brought to justice. In the other place, Baroness Denton informed us that people would no doubt have strange feelings that the House

"should be contemplating the decommissioning of the weapon which was used to murder Stephen Restorick."

"necessary loss of evidence".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 1997; Vol. 578, c. 1041.]

The hon. Gentleman ought to be a bit more careful, if he will allow me to say so. There is no question of an amnesty for any offence committed using any weapon. He knows that to be the case as it was explained fully when the House dealt with the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill, which was passed with substantial support. Of course it is right that everyone who perpetrates a foul crime, such as the murder of Lance Bombardier Restorick, is pursued with every lawful means. I give that assurance now.

The Secretary of State is aware of the unexploded bomb in my constituency of West Belfast last night. He is also aware of the young lady in Armagh whose hair was shaved off and who had paint poured over her head. We also had the horrific murder of Stephen Restorick. Bearing it in mind that the talks process in Castle Buildings will almost certainly be adjourned very shortly because of the impending parliamentary election, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that, whatever Government are in place after the election, those talks will be renewed immediately afterwards and providing that there is an unequivocal and genuine ceasefire—I emphasise the word "genuine"—Sinn Fein will be admitted to the talks?

I have already this afternoon set out the shared position of both Governments in regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As to the first part, it was again due to the extreme professionalism of the security forces that a murderous attack was forestalled last night in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and also in another part of Belfast. That is wholly incompatible with any credibility being attached to professions of seeking peace. As to the future of the talks, that will of course depend on the participants in the talks, but I take great heart from the fact that those participating in the talks have almost universally expressed the desire that, after a period in cold storage, they will resume. It is the intention of everyone that they resume in as positive an environment as possible.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for clarifying, at least indirectly, in answer to earlier questions the fact that the close relationship between the Irish Government and the United Kingdom Government is one of the important keys to the future success of the longer-term peace process. Does he not agree, however, that despite the massive collective grief that we still feel over the murder of Lance Bombardier Restorick, out of that very sad occasion in Peterborough, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) and others, came inspiration in the extraordinarily wise words of the family of the murdered soldier and in the invitations to the lady who had been in the car when the soldier was murdered and to the rest of her family from Ireland? Is that not on a level with the late Senator Wilson in providing the inspiration of millions of people wanting peace in the Province and in the Republic of Ireland when a small number of extremists on all sides still wish to perpetuate extremism and the exclusive use of continuing vetoes?

I repeat expressions of appreciation that I have already publicly made for the extraordinary dignity of the response of Lance Bombardier Restorick's parents and couple them with my appreciation of what was said by Mrs. Lorraine McElroy, the passenger in the car. Incidentally, Lance Bombardier Restorick was very concerned that those helping him should know that she had been injured. That is a measure of the type of young man that he was. I very much hope that the contrast between the fineness of the behaviour of that young man, the dignity of what has been said by people, which has already been mentioned today, and the squalor and disgusting character of the crime will have its own effect.

May I identify myself with the comments that the Secretary of State has just made? Does he agree that the job of the parties who have tried to make progress in the talks has been made much harder by the on-going IRA violence and that it must stop immediately? Will he join me in saying that, whatever the outcome of the general election, the talks about a just and peaceful settlement for Northern Ireland will be pursued with every determination? Does he agree that, if Sinn Fein wants to be part of that process, the IRA violence must stop and their warm words about peace must be backed up by actions that prove that they mean it? Will he join me in saying that a new British Government, of whichever party, will be unbending in their opposition to violence but will continue his current willingness to respond positively to a genuine desire for peace?

I think that many people will take reassurance from what the hon. Lady has said in the latter part of that question. What these people have got to know and learn is that they cannot look forward to being able to turn violence off and then turn violence on again. That is what is meant by the need for a credible, unequivocal ceasefire, a setting aside for good—not just for a tactical period—of the use of violence for political purposes. I agree with what she says about the importance of the talks process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the per capita expenditure on education in the current year; what was the equivalent figure in May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [16362]

Expenditure on education per head of population is £846 in 1996–97. In 1979–80, the equivalent figure was £254, or £665 at 1996–97 prices.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures are a matter for congratulation? Does he further agree that the continuing excellence of education in Northern Ireland owes a great deal to the fact that schools there never gave up proper selection, as the Labour party has sought to do? Labour has constantly opposed selection and Labour Members cannot be trusted when they say that they are eschewing their permanent opposition to it. Whatever they say on education, they cannot be believed in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales or anywhere else.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks and I agree with him. Given the education system in Northern Ireland, the results reflect favourably in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, 52 per cent. of pupils gain five or more GCSEs at grade C and above, while the figure for Great Britain is some 45 per cent. The same pattern emerges in respect of A-levels. In Northern Ireland, 87 per cent. of pupils achieve at least two A-levels compared with 77 per cent. in England. The figures reflect very well on Northern Ireland's education system. Although a selective system produces good results at the top end of the scale, we must make sure that the low achievers are also well served. The number of pupils leaving school without qualifications in Northern Ireland has dropped considerably and is now below the level for Great Britain.

The figures quoted by the Minister to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) sound well and probably read well to those who do not understand the extreme financial pressure on principals and school governors in medium-sized primary schools and secondary schools which do not receive additional funds through the raising school standards initiatives or which have their funding distorted by the targeting social need fund. May I put it to the Minister that there is something seriously wrong when large sums are flowing to grammar schools under targeting social need? We are annoyed by that. While we condemn the 60 attacks on our schools last year, we are concerned that our pupils are being penalised and punished because of the wanton vandalism and terrorism that the Government have failed to control by improving security measures. When will we have a system of fair and equal distribution of funding to all our children in all our schools in Northern Ireland?

We try as far as possible to reflect the needs within Northern Ireland's education in the formulas by which allocations are made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not disagree that in the raising school standards initiative we are identifying particular schools where there have been low rates of achievement and specifically addressing funds to those schools.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to pay tribute to the excellent work of everyone involved in education in Northern Ireland for keeping normality in the schools and excellence throughout the system. Getting away from security matters for once, will he tell the House what is being done about information technology in schools in Northern Ireland? Are pupils being introduced to the Internet? Are schools getting the computers that they need and are they building the experience that they will need for future employment?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving us away from the security situation. I pay tribute to all those who work in education in Northern Ireland for the way in which they have managed to maintain a high quality of education and provided stability for the children in the recent difficult years. Within available resources, we are anxious for information technology to be introduced to as many schools as possible. The current pattern is varied: some schools are very advanced in their IT provision and some are not. It is encouraging that the universities are beginning to explore the use of new technology in education in a way that will benefit schools and further education colleges in the longer term.

When the Minister allocated money to schools this year, what calculation did he make of the number of teachers who would lose their jobs and the impact of that on the pupil-teacher ratio? Is it true that he still does not know how many teachers lost their jobs last year as a consequence of his budget decisions? Why does he not know the consequences of his actions?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the pupil-teacher ratio in Northern Ireland is better than in Great Britain. We take some pride in that. The boards have to decide their financial plans. Until those plans are before us, we cannot make an exact assessment. In my guidance to the boards, I have always tried to ensure that classroom provision is maintained, even if that has meant some difficult cuts in other areas such as youth provision, libraries and, as I announced on Tuesday, a smaller than usual capital programme. I have skewed the priorities to ensure that provision in the classroom remains at the top of the list, because that is the key to education.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the groups that were successful in the election to the Northern Ireland Forum have expressed support for a ceasefire and a peaceful solution to problems in the Province; and which have not. [16363]

Of the 10 political parties elected to the negotiations in the election of 30 May last year, nine have expressed their commitment to the six Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, as they are required to do on entry to the talks process. The remaining party, Sinn Fein, remains outside the talks process and will continue to do so until an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire is in place.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the loyalist community—as well as some nationalists—have shown a real desire to resist the recent violent provocations? Does he also agree that the credibility of Sinn Fein-IRA is as low as it can be and we do not yet see any opportunity for them to condemn violence? Should they not be condemned for taking that position?

I make no bones about condemning the recent activities, which can be described only as murderous, vicious and cowardly. That includes the shooting of Lance Bombardier Restorick for which, I understand, the IRA has finally claimed responsibility. It is clear to everyone in Northern Ireland that, far from moving towards the commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and the adherence to democratic principles required of Sinn Fein if it wants to become part of the talks process, the activities of the IRA are making the credibility gap ever wider.

Given the Government's clear determination to exclude Sinn Fein until the IRA campaign stops, and given the frequent statements from the republican leadership that it has no intention of restoring the ceasefire, does the Minister have any proposals for increased security measures to defeat the IRA campaign—or are the people of Northern Ireland doomed to live with the situation for ever?

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's concern about security. We have noted carefully—in the light of some of the companionship that he enjoys—his injunctions on the Government to increase security measures. The British Government are not alone: the Irish Government have also made it clear that an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire is necessary for Sinn Fein to participate in the negotiations. The reason for that is simple: the negotiations can proceed only on the basis of confidence. When there is direct or indirect duress or threat of resumed violence from one party if it does not get its way, the negotiations cannot proceed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best contribution that the United Kingdom Government can make to a peaceful solution in Northern Ireland is consistently to promote, advocate and support the status and integrity of Northern Ireland within the UK and consistently to praise and express appreciation for all the political parties in Northern Ireland—not least the Official Unionist party—for their very positive contribution to a peaceful solution?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, which I am sure will have been heard by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. In the democracy that is the United Kingdom, the Government are totally committed to ensuring that the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to the status of Northern Ireland are supported and promoted.

Has the Minister noticed that the Northern Ireland Forum is quite an interesting body? It has been boycotted by Sinn Fein from the start, and is now boycotted by the SDLP. It is therefore virtually a Unionist organisation, yet it has passed some quite radical motions: on water privatisation, on the establishment of a disability rights commission, and, against the Government's position, on BSE. Is it not therefore rather strange that the Unionists adopt a rather different position in this House from the unanimous one adopted in the Northern Ireland Forum, which acts rather like a Labour party conference—or should I say, an old Labour party conference?

As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the Northern Ireland Forum was set up with the purpose of promoting dialogue and understanding. I have to say that I am not sure whether some of the things it discusses would necessarily fit easily into that definition, but it has produced some very interesting comments on certain issues, and, as he knows, I have taken account of some of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the implications for the political peace process in Northern Ireland of the current security situation. [16365]

The IRA continues its murderous attacks, indifferent to whom it may kill or maim. In the absence of the IRA declaring and implementing an unequivocal ceasefire that is credible, Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself from the process of talks. With or without its participation, we shall continue to further the process of inclusive and comprehensive talks.

Is it not time to pay tribute to the steadfastness of my right hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial team in their insistence that the governance of Northern Ireland shall always be democratically decided, and will never change in response to intimidation, fear, any atrocity or any political pressure that is imposed by the apologists of violence such as Sinn Fein?

We are certainly steadfast in that policy and in that cause. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It is slightly unnerving to have a tribute paid to one in this post.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the most significant impact on all the proceedings is the emerging fact that Sinn Fein-IRA totally abhors the principle of consent, and has thereby lost all sympathy and support throughout the world? Does he agree that this is the time for progress on the restoration of practical measures to restore effective administration to the people of Northern Ireland?

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Sinn Fein and the IRA have steadfastly refused to endorse the principle of consent, thereby, of course, refusing to endorse the foundation of democracy. I very much wish that greater responsibility was able to be exercised by people elected for that purpose in Northern Ireland. It is the purpose of the talks process to find a means by which, based on consent and comprehensive agreement, that can be achieved.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that currently one of the most distasteful sights in Northern Ireland is the unauthorised IRA signs in South Armagh proclaiming "Sniper at Work"? Does he agree that they are an insult not only to the family of the lance-bombardier but to all those residents who expressed their dismay over his murder? Whose responsibility are those signs, and when will they be taken down?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments on the signs. I think that they are an insult, and that they are provocative and revolting. I understand that they are occasionally taken down. I will write to my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to do so, about the implications of his question.

Is it not of interest that, following the cowardly murder last week of the British soldier, the Taoiseach made it perfectly clear that those responsible—the IRA—were the dedicated enemies of the Republic of Ireland, as indeed they are of Northern Ireland and of the entire United Kingdom? No doubt the Taoiseach will make his views quite clear when he speaks at Monday's meeting in Dublin of the British-Irish parliamentary body. Is it not important for the IRA to realise that murdering British soldiers will not in any way bring a united Ireland one step nearer, that such murders are totally unjustified, and that those who commit them are committing crimes against humanity?

I warmly endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments, and pay tribute to his holding consistently to those views and to his expression of them. I noticed that Mr. Bruton, the Taoiseach, said recently:

"The IRA campaign is anti-Irish and contrary to the interests of all in Ireland."

Does the Secretary of State agree that progress on this summer's parades have implications also for political progress? With that in mind, we welcome the measures he announced yesterday in response to recommendations in the North report. Will he now tell the House when he expects to announce the membership of the Parades Commission? As he is halfway through his further consultation, will he also tell us what additional information he has gained from the submissions made to him on the nature of the powers that the commission should have?

It is premature to say anything about the nature of the submissions or about the results of the consultation when the consultation is incomplete. It will be completed at the end of March, and we have a genuinely open mind until then. I hope to be able to announce the composition of the commission fairly shortly. We attach great importance to its establishment and to its early assumption of those powers that we have accepted straight away as being proper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on youth unemployment in Northern Ireland. [16366]

At 9 January 1997, there were 17,130 unemployed young people, aged under 25, in Northern Ireland. That is a decrease of 3,594, or 17.3 per cent., in the past year. The decreases in unemployment are evident in all parts of the Province.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are very good news for young people in Northern Ireland, and a tribute to the economic policies that have been pursued by the Government? Has not inward investment also played an important part in the decrease in unemployment?

Indeed it has, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is also interesting to note that, in September 1996, employment was at the highest September figure ever. That also bodes well for the Province. The decrease reflects the fact that there has been much inward investment. The Government's economic policies have been good. Particularly by not signing up for the social chapter, we have managed to attract industry to Northern Ireland which otherwise would not have come.

On the basis that the devil will always find work for idle hands to do, will the Minister examine very carefully the strange imbalance between male and female unemployment rates in Northern Ireland, and confirm that those rates are mirrored in youth unemployment? What does he intend to do this summer to give work to young people to take them off the streets?

I will look into that, but I do not have an answer at the moment. I will ask my noble Friend Baroness Denton, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman. We are concerned about the marginalisation of young people in Northern Ireland, precisely because of the activities that the young unemployed can get up to. Unemployment is a priority in the Department of Education, and an interdepartmental working group is addressing the issue. I hope that it will report later this year.

Does the Minister agree that many unemployed youngsters are badly handicapped in the labour market by their appalling lack of educational qualifications? Is it not time for a radical reappraisal of the policy for targeting social needs funds? Those funds should be wholly directed to schools in deprived areas.

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we are directing money, through targeting social needs funds, to specific schools, and the results are shown in the substantial reduction in the number leaving schools without qualifications. The greatest improvement for the unemployed, young or old, in Northern Ireland would be for peace to be restored, so that the economy could grow and jobs be created.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16389]

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.

While the victims of Gulf war syndrome continue to suffer illness and are denied compensation, is it not a disgrace that no one in the Government is prepared to accept any personal responsibility for what has happened? As there is no doubt that service personnel and their families were seriously misled by the Ministry of Defence, does not that denial of responsibility prove that the assessment by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) of the Secretary of State for Defence as "not honourable" was spot on?

If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about the question of compensation, he will know that service personnel in this country can claim compensation for loss or injury caused by negligent action. There is a satisfactory way to do that. In order to consider compensation claims fairly, we need to establish what caused the ailments. There have been a series of inquiries, which are continuing, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has reported to the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the procedure whereby the minutes of the meetings between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England are published is healthy, because it leads to open government? Does he further agree that any Chancellor who abandoned that procedure might leave himself open to the suspicion that he was trying to fudge things on the economy?

Such a suspicion might be there. I think many people might be suspicious about why the shadow Chancellor is talking about a Budget this summer, were he to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hardly believe that it would be a Budget that reduced taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman has a Budget of a different type in mind, perhaps—like one of his predecessors as shadow Chancellor—he might care to publish it before the election.

May I refer the Prime Minister back to the subject of the Ministry of Defence, and ask him about the Defence Select Committee report this morning into defence medical services? Does he agree with the report's central conclusion that so badly has the Ministry of Defence managed change that either we would send our troops into a crisis without proper medical back-up, or we would have to limit the number of troops we sent? That is a shocking conclusion. Do the Government accept it?

Of course we will examine the report of the Defence Select Committee. [Interruption.] I think the House would expect me to examine a report by hon. Members before I responded to a long and detailed report that I have not yet had the opportunity to read. If I were to respond in any other way, the House would ask how I could have known. I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that, although I have not yet read the report myself—but I most certainly will—I have been advised that the defence medical services can provide the medical support necessary to assist British troops on operational deployments, as they have done in the Gulf and in Bosnia. I have received that advice from the Ministry of Defence. But I reiterate the point that, of course, if a Select Committee reports, I shall examine that report carefully, and we shall respond in the usual fashion when the examination is completed.

I thank the Prime Minister for that, but he should be aware that precisely the same assurances were given two years ago, and the Defence Select Committee examined them and found them ultimately to be worthless. The language used in the report is fairly strong, saying that the situation is so serious that the service cannot recover, and that

"No amount of self-justification can disguise"

I think that we had better wait for the examination and see what the outcome is. The right hon. Gentleman is keen to determine blame before there is any certainty that there is any blame to be determined. I suggest that he wait until we have examined the report, as of course we shall. There has been some restructuring of the defence medical services, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I welcome the Committee's endorsement, which he did not mention, of the new secondary care structures. That is very welcome.

So you have read it.

I have not read the report-but I have received preliminary advice on it, and I shall read it. When I have read it, I shall report upon it in full. Let me return from the side issue raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I think that Select Committee reports require more attention than just a summary and one morning, and that is what the report will get from the Government. That may be how the Opposition would respond to reports from the House, but it is not how I respond to them.

May I point out to the Prime Minister that yesterday we had a highly critical report on Ministers' handling of the use of pesticides in the Gulf war, today the Defence Select Committee says that there is serious doubt about front-line defence capability, as a result of changes that the Government have made, and that next week, apparently, a further report is to be made? I simply ask him: does anyone in this Government ever take responsibility for anything?

If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the history of Gulf war syndrome, he will see the action that has been taken. He will also, I hope, acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces came voluntarily and immediately to the House the moment that it was drawn to his attention that he had not been advised accurately by his officials. My hon. Friend did as he should have done, and came immediately to the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of examination results has led to a significant improvement in standards in secondary schools? In the light of that, may I welcome the fact that the results of the tests for 11-year-olds in primary schools will be published school by school? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will do all they can to resist the attempts by the unions and the Labour party to undermine those tests?

I can certainly offer that assurance. The Labour party has objected to tests from the outset. It is not keen on children being tested, and it is less keen on the test results being made available to parents. Many people who are now used to receiving those test results would resent very much any suggestion from any quarter that that information should no longer be available to parents.

In his answer to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), the Prime Minister referred to those suffering from Gulf war syndrome as suffering from "ailments". May I remind him that these are not ailments, but serious illnesses that threaten the quality of people's lives? Is not the question on organophosphates very simple? Which Minister—either personally or through incompetence in his Department—allowed our service men to be exposed to the risk of organophosphates when other Ministers were making it clear that organophosphates were extremely dangerous? Will the Prime Minister comment?

The right hon. Gentleman did not set out the position accurately before he asked his question.

Yes, I did.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he did—he seems to know more than all the people who have examined the matter for some time. Yet I fear he does not. As usual, he is in the business of scapegoating without knowing the facts.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade union Unison has been making direct threats against private firms which have had the temerity to put in for contracts with Birmingham city council, to the effect that, should those contracts be granted, strikes, disruptions and go-slows will follow? Is he aware that at least one such firm has been so frightened that it has pulled out of a contract? Will he take steps to get rid of those typical Labour bully-boy tactics, and ensure that there is free and fair competition for the small businesses of Birmingham?

rose—

Wait until Wirral.

Is not that interesting? The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says, "Wait until Wirral." He does not address the issue, and he is not concerned about Unison. The Labour party is opposed to privatisation, but the right hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—which has benefited from privatisation. There is a word for that, and I believe that it is hypocrisy. It seeps out of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who sits there shouting.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16391]

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

Does the Prime Minister understand why, after six years, many people will find his reply on compensation for the victims of Gulf war syndrome totally inadequate? How were people meant to process claims when the Department would not admit to using organophosphates? Does he know that recent estimates of those afflicted by the condition have reached 1,100–10 times those killed and maimed in the original conflict? Therefore, is not the case for compensation overwhelming? Should not someone in his ministerial team have the simple integrity to accept responsibility for six years of departmental dissembling?

As far back as 1993, the Ministry of Defence established a medical assessment programme to try to diagnose why Gulf war veterans were ill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, having just issued his charge, should listen to what has happened. The methodology of the programme was audited by the Royal College of Physicians and subsequently endorsed in 1995. That programme, which commenced in 1993, did not produce any evidence of a new pattern of illness. None the less, the Government decided that more work needed to be done.

Whatever difficulties our forces may have faced in the Gulf, will my right hon. Friend reiterate the Government's support for the Reserve Army, and especially the territorials?

I am happy to do that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16392]

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

Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government's failure to resolve the BSE crisis has cost taxpayers billions of pounds and the beef industry hundreds of millions, and that still there is no end in sight? Given that the latest scheme merely scratches the surface of the problem, when will Scottish farmers be able to escape the ban? Let us have a date; and a real date this time.

There was no reason for the imposition of the ban to begin with, but its lifting, alas, is not within the control of the Government or the House. I said that we had negotiated conditions that we had to meet, so that those who imposed the ban could lift it; we have met the conditions, but the lifting of the ban lies with those who imposed it. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman could understand that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16390]

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

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an issue of which I gave him notice? There is a problem in my constituency of stowaways who have been arriving dead, unfortunately, in the holds of small ships arriving at New Holland and Immingham. It appears that the ships originate; Nigeria and Sierra Leone, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to get in touch with the ambassadors or high commissioners of those countries. The people travel in dreadful conditions, and, although they are illegal immigrants, they arrive dead, and something needs to be done about it.

I shall certainly ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to consider that matter. My hon. Friend may also want to discuss the matter with my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. As he may know, the United Kingdom played a leading role in developing guidelines to ensure that stowaways are dealt with promptly and humanely.