---

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that all hon. Members--whatever their position or party--want peace in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has announced a very complicated package that will clearly need a great deal of study. However, he has not yet said why he believes that there are no grounds for declaring that a referendum could solve the problem. If we believe that the province of Ulster is part of the United Kingdom, why are we not prepared to put a straightforward proposition to the people of Northern Ireland: do they believe in the integration of Ulster, the province of Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom? I believe that that is long overdue.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, there is a place for referendums. I have said that, at the end of the negotiations, we shall put the outcome of those negotiations to the people of Northern Ireland. In my judgment, it is right that they should have the opportunity to decide on the outcome of those negotiations. That is the way in which we propose to operate: that referendum is certain.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is the Prime Minister aware that the new Rubik's cube-type election procedure that he has announced today could have been avoided, as everyone knows that the all-party talks could have taken place without any elections? We know also that, at the time of the Scott report, the Prime Minister and his colleagues made sure that the three votes of DUP Members were registered on his side by flying a kite that favoured them in order to save the Government.

Now that the Scott report is out of the way and the Prime Minister managed to secure victory by one vote, he must turn to the nine Ulster Unionists whose votes he needs in order to carry him for as long as possible through to the next election. That is why he has come up with

21 Mar 1996 : Column 508

this complicated procedure. He conned the DUP, and the chances are that he will con the Ulster Unionists before the day is out.

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure how the hon. Gentleman's thought processes work--in fact, I am not even sure whether the hon. Gentleman's thought processes do work. However, he has the unique gift of being 100 per cent. wrong in every assertion that he has made. The all-party talks could not have taken place without an election--as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had the first crumb of knowledge about what was happening in Ulster. The talks could not have taken place and the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that fact. There was no agreement with the Democratic Unionist party.

Mr. Skinner: They thought so.

The Prime Minister: They did not think so.DUP Members know that there was no such agreement;the hon. Gentleman should ask them about it.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South): In view of the trenchant opposition to the proposals voiced by the somewhat strange alliance of the DUP and the SDLP--I do not know what to call it--does the Prime Minister agree that it seems to some entirely appropriate that the views of the major party in the province, which represents the majority of the population, should be taken very seriously?

The Prime Minister: We take very seriously the views of everyone in Northern Ireland. One of the great tragedies of Northern Ireland over the past 30 or so years is that a minority on any particular point has been able to bring whatever peace process existed to a juddering halt. That is why we need to take into account not only the views of the largest party but the views of smaller parties and the views of both traditions of Northern Ireland. Without that, no settlement could last.

Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): The Prime Minister said that Sinn Fein-IRA would not be at the negotiations on 10 June unless there was what he called an unequivocal ceasefire. Will he clarify for the House and for the people of Northern Ireland how he will define such an unequivocal ceasefire?

The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we want the restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994 and an indication that it is intended to be unequivocal. That is the point that we have made in the past, and it remains the position.

21 Mar 1996 : Column 509

Business of the House

4.15 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:

Monday 25 March--Second Reading of the Family Law Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 26 March--Opposition Day (8th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled The Problems Presented by the Privatisation of Nuclear Power, followed by a debate entitled Government Cuts in Health and Safety Provision. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Wednesday 27 March--Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 28 March--Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Friday 29 March--Private Members' Bills.

Monday 1 April--Opposition Day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

I am not yet able to give details for Tuesday 2 April and Wednesday 3 April, but I expect that it will be necessary to take Government business on both days. The morning business on Wednesday 3 April will include the usual pre-recess three-hour general debate on the Adjournment. As previously announced, the House will rise for the Easter recess at the close of business that day until Tuesday 16 April.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 27 March to consider European Community document No. 9674/95 relating to Border Controls.

[Wednesday 27 March: European Standing Committee B--European Community document: 9674/95, Border Controls. Relevant European Legislation Report:HC 70-xxvi (1994-95).]

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): I thank the Leader of the House for that information. First, he will know that yesterday the Secretary of State for Health said--the Prime Minister repeated it today--that the Government are awaiting further evidence from their advisory committee on the risks of eating beef products, and that that committee is meeting this weekend to consider the specific issue of giving advice to parents. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the House is kept fully informed on this matter, and, if necessary--it may well be necessary--will he make arrangements for a further statement to be made on Monday by the Secretary or State for Health so that questions can be asked about that further advice?

When does the Leader of the House expect to be able to find time for a full and informed debate on the latest information about bovine spongiform encephalopathy and what has happened in recent years, so that the issues explored briefly in questions on the statements yesterday can be given the full attention that they deserve and require?

21 Mar 1996 : Column 510

Secondly, the Leader of the House announced that on Monday the House will debate the Second Reading of the Family Law Bill. There has been speculation as to how the Government might subsequently deal with that Bill--assuming, of course, that it is granted a Second Reading on Monday.

When will the Leader of the House be in a position to make an announcement about any steps that he intends to take in dealing with certain clauses of the Bill--its Committee stage--on the Floor of the House?The Government's attitude towards that might influence certain hon. Members when they come to vote on Second Reading. In particular, can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government propose to do about split pensions? It is a vital issue for thousands of women who are waiting to learn what the Government intend, given the vote in another place a short time ago.

Finally, as the House has not exactly been overwhelmed by the weight of business since Christmas, and as the Leader of the House said at the turn of year that he was willing to consider further the workings of Parliament, will he find time soon after the Easter recess to debate possible changes to our procedures, so as not only to make Parliament work more efficiently but to make it more effective?

Mr. Newton: Further advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, as has been said on a number of occasions, is expected shortly after its meeting this weekend, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health would expect to come to the House promptly to make a statement on it. It is a matter of observation that my right hon. Friend was here to make a statement yesterday at an early stage after previous advice was received.

I cannot be absolutely precise, but good faith has been shown by the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter. It would be premature for me to make a commitment to a debate, as the hon. Lady requested, at the Dispatch Box this afternoon, especially in advance of receiving further advice. I will bear the request in mind, and we may be able to discuss it further through the usual channels.

On the Family Law Bill, the hon. Lady will know that discussion on those matters is proceeding in the usual channels at the moment. The Government certainly expect to make provision for the discussion of appropriate clauses--the so-called conscience clauses--on the Floor of the House. On pension splitting, I cannot add to what I said last week about the Government having under consideration the amendment passed in another place, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would expect to make the position clear in his speech on Second Reading next week.

I continue to bear in mind the hon. Lady's request for a debate on parliamentary procedures and related matters. I have to say that, on my observation, we are not at all short of business. The hon. Lady may be thinking of a slack week that we had two or three weeks ago, but that was a pause before legislation started to arrive here from another place.

---