If she will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [81279]

A great deal of progress has been made in implementing the Good Friday agreement. The Government have already made all the practical preparations necessary for devolution and for all the institutions set up under the agreement to go live. Talks between the two Governments and the parties continue to try to overcome the remaining obstacles. No one is hiding the fact that this is a difficult period, but it is clear that the people of Northern Ireland want to make progress and want their agreement to be put into practice.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Will she join me in welcoming the opinion poll in the Irish Times yesterday which revealed that support for the Good Friday agreement among the people of Northern Ireland is still strong and, if anything, getting stronger? Does she agree that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want their politicians to compromise, make the Good Friday agreement work and bring a lasting peace and normal politics to Northern Ireland?

I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. The poll revealed that 73 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland—a higher number than in the referendum — support the agreement and would vote for it. It revealed also that a phenomenal 70 per cent. of people understand that the only way forward is to compromise. I always like to have the results of more than one poll, and the good point about this poll is that the guts of it, on the major issues, support previous polls by other newspapers and institutions. There is a continuity of view on those issues.

The poll also demonstrates—we should not ignore this fact—that half the population have confidence and believe that the Good Friday agreement will be implemented, and half have their doubts, are fearful and distrusting and do not have the confidence to believe that progress will be made. It is important that we continue our work with the Irish to build that confidence to find a way forward.

I refer the Secretary of State to the security section in the Belfast agreement, in which the Government undertook to make progress towards normal security arrangements in accordance with a published strategy, and to consult with the parties about that strategy. When will the Government publish that strategy? Are they engaged in any consultation or negotiation on that strategy, or elements of it, with any parties? Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to the House that any published strategy will eschew gimmicks and make sure that the safety of society is the overriding consideration?

I shall start with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. Clearly, the safety of the people of Northern Ireland is paramount in our minds, and that will be the overriding issue. The safety of the people is the job of any Government, and it will remain a strong priority and central to anything that this Government do.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether there has been any consultation. We have consulted the Irish, as I am sure he and others would expect. Our close working relationship with the Irish is consistent with that consultation, and it would be surprising if we had not consulted.

The right hon. Gentleman also asks whether we shall consult other parties. We shall certainly consult him, as the First Minister, and the Deputy First Minister before any strategy is published. He asks whether there is a date for publication. We are still working on that strategy, so I cannot yet give him a date, but we shall publish it as soon as we have finished.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Irish Times poll yesterday reveals that 69 per cent. of Ulster Unionist voters and 77 per cent. of Sinn Fein voters demonstrate an unwillingness to compromise. Given that fact and the fact that the interminable talks are getting nowhere, is it not time for the two Governments to stop playing nanny to the two parties that are holding up the agreement and to define clearly the compromises that must be made, the process through which the international body on decommissioning can progress and advance decommissioning and a date on which the Executive Committee and the institutions will come into being, without being vetoed by any political party?

I share some of the hon. Gentleman's frustration with the speed at which the process is moving, but he knows as well as I do that it will not work unless we get all parties acting collectively to find an accommodation and a way forward. Therefore, as he suggests, the two Governments are working closely together to do what we can to move the process forward, but we need to do so with the parties on side, because the Good Friday agreement cannot work—decisions cannot be taken—without cross-community support. We are working on that now, and we shall continue to do so in the days and weeks ahead. I believe that there is not a party around that table that does not want to make progress and, as the poll suggests that the people want progress, it is incumbent on all of us to take a risk and keep going.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Irish Times poll represents very good information indeed and that, although we do not always take such polls seriously, its findings seem to fit the general mood in Northern Ireland? In that context, does she agree that although it is perfectly legitimate for politicians in Northern Ireland to represent the 27 per cent. who oppose the Good Friday agreement, they should not use their position to obstruct the progress that has been made so far?

The 27 per cent. who did not support the agreement obviously have a democratic right to continue to voice their views, but I hope that they will acknowledge the wishes of the majority that we do everything we can to help rather than hinder. We have come a long way. A lot of progress has been made. It is a difficult time, and people are getting frustrated, but if we stick in there, keep talking and do not walk, we have a chance to make it.

Most of us hesitate to intervene in these discussions from the mainland because we are reluctant to be back-seat drivers, but I believe that an increasing number of British MPs have realised that we have allowed the opponents of the agreement to hitch its success to a single aspect—the decommissioning of selected weapons — whereas, for most people, the essence is that the agreement delivers peace: the absence of hostile action by all sides. That is something which the surrender of weapons will not guarantee, and which requires further commitment from all sides. Might it not be possible to move the process forward by emphasising other aspects of the achievement of peace, which we all want?

I thank my hon. Friend. I think it is clear from both sides of the House and from everyone around the table that agreement needs the support of all the parties — which is what we are working towards—and that, in addition, the whole of the Good Friday agreement must be implemented. As George Mitchell said, reaching agreement was tough; implementing it is tougher, because many people wanted one bit and not another. That is the stage that we have reached. People are looking at a host of options and ways forward.

My hon. Friend suggests that we look at other aspects and see whether that helps. What helps—an aspect that, as he suggests, might make a difference—is the building of trust and confidence, because what is needed is for all parties to realise how far we have come, for all parties to realise that people in Northern Ireland want to make progress and for all parties to ask themselves, "What can we do with the lack of trust and lack of confidence of others around the table?" I believe that if everyone did that, progress would be made.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the two Governments have jumped every hurdle and fulfilled all their obligations under the agreement? Does she also accept that the constitutional parties, Unionist and nationalist, have also jumped all hurdles and fulfilled all their obligations, and that the stumbling block that stops an Executive being set up is the fact that the paramilitaries, republican and loyalist, are not starting their decommissioning?

What the right hon. Gentleman has to do in understanding the Good Friday agreement is accept that all parts of the agreement have to be implemented. There is not a stumbling block for one side or the other because decommissioning, as we have said in the House on many occasions, is an essential part of the agreement. It is not a precondition but it is clearly an obligation, so that has to be part of what moves forward. As I said in my answer to the main question, we are almost there in implementing other parts of the agreement. By introducing preconditions of any sort, progress will not be made. The parties must come together, with all the help that the rest of us can give them, to find a way forward.

Surely the Secretary of State accepts that everybody else has fulfilled all their obligations, including herself. The only stumbling block is now the paramilitaries. I do not believe that it can be right in a democracy that the democratic process is vetoed by the men of violence. Will the right hon. Lady seriously consider setting up a devolved Executive without Sinn Fein-IRA, and allow them to join as and when they start to fulfil their obligations by decommissioning?

If I do what the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to do, I will lose the one bit of leverage that I have, which is to implement the Good Friday agreement in full. I would succeed in destroying that agreement. I have no intention of doing that.

What action is being taken to encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland. [81280]

The continuing attraction of inward investment to Northern Ireland is vital to the growth of the Northern Ireland economy, and the responsibility for this rests with the Industrial Development Board. As an example of recent initiatives, last October, I, along with the Secretary of State, supported by the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate), undertook an intensive 11-city inward investment tour of north America. The IDB is actively building on the benefits of that investment drive.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Northern Ireland team on its understanding and tenacity in encouraging the Belfast agreement along.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that inward investment is extremely important in creating the jobs, opportunities and prosperity that will help to bridge the sectarian divide. He will be aware also that new industry has a priority to ensure the health and safety of its work force. Will he ensure that the new Health and Safety Executive, which was set up and launched at Stormont earlier this year, is equipped to provide the best of standards for all workers in all occupations? As many of the new industries will be moving into established premises, will my right hon. Friend ensure that some of the inspectors are trained in the health and safety aspects of asbestos removal?

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words with reference to what we have been able to achieve to date. I hope that his view is shared on both sides of the House because much has been achieved. My hon. Friend is right in that the more progress that is made in establishing peace, the greater will be the economic development. My hon. Friend referred to the establishment of the new Health and Safety Executive, which took up its mantle of responsibilities from 1 April. I take note of what he says about the training of inspectors. It is right that inspectors should be trained to deal with everything that they are likely to face in carrying out their duties. I shall ensure that that message is taken on board by the executive. Of course, if we have implementation of the Good Friday agreement, it will become a devolved issue for the new Assembly.

What research is being conducted by the Minister's Department to establish the relative importance of labour market flexibility and the use of the English language in the attraction of inward investment to Northern Ireland?

I do not know whether we have undertaken any specific research. I shall certainly engage in some research to ascertain whether we have done any research and to see whether there is anything to be gained from such research. I think that it is well known that one of the specific areas of potential inward investment is the English-speaking world, primarily north America. That is why we targeted that market. I am not so sure that research would prove that we need to do more in that context because we have expended a great deal of effort in seeking to encourage inward investment.

As for the flexibility of the labour market, we market Northern Ireland on the basis of its human resources and its commitment, in all sections of the community, to the work ethic. The people of Northern Ireland want peace but they also want jobs.

I thank the Minister for his earlier encouraging remarks on inward investment and draw his attention to the completion of a new business park in Downpatrick, in the north of the South Down constituency. According to the strategic plan for the next 10 years, the population of the area, which already has high unemployment, is destined to double. What specific and special action does he anticipate the Government taking to attract inward investment to the area, and to publicise and market the new business park? The area's visitation ratio over the past 10 years has been low.

We seek to encourage among companies coming into Northern Ireland maximum interest in considering areas such as Downpatrick, which undoubtedly has major potential in a variety of ways—not only for industrial growth, but for tourism. I compliment my hon. Friend on all his efforts on behalf of his constituency and to ensure that people are aware of the importance of inward investment for that area. We do our best in marketing and encourage as many companies as possible to consider coming to Northern Ireland, but it is for them to make their investment decisions, although we may put attractive packages in front of them to attract them to areas such as Downpatrick.

The Minister will be aware that spiralling fuel costs in Northern Ireland are a major deterrent to inward investment. We welcome the announcement that I understand the Government have made about considering compensation to petrol retailers who are suffering as a result of smuggling. Will he meet the Northern Ireland regional representatives of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association to discuss the impact of increasing fuel costs on the industry's ability to provide an effective transport service to businesses in Northern Ireland and to potential inward investors?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the Government's announcement; it is always nice to hear such a welcome from him. The Government's approach has been to listen and to try to find the best way forward. I have agreed to meet the Petrol Retailers Association, and I would not be averse to meeting other interested lobby groups so that I can articulate their views to the appropriate Department. However, these matters do not rest with the Northern Ireland Office, but with the Treasury.

What recent representations she has received on when the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives will begin. [81283]

The Government continue to meet representatives of all the political parties to discuss all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. The Independent Commission on Decommissioning continues its discussions with the representatives of the various groups. All sides must honour all the commitments they made in the Good Friday agreement, and the Government are determined that all aspects should move forward in parallel.

Does the Minister accept that Senator Mitchell, whom the Secretary of State mentioned in an earlier answer, said nearly three years ago that all paramilitary groups were committed to decommissioning and to peace? Does the Secretary of State accept that confidence in the peace process will not be encouraged if there is any question of Sinn Fein-IRA joining the Executive in Northern Ireland before there is credible and verifiable decommissioning? Does she further accept that many people believe that she will throw away all her negotiating cards if she continues to release convicted terrorist murderers from prison?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong views on this issue, but he should have listened to some of the previous questions, which concerned what is deemed to be the current mood of people in Northern Ireland and what they want in respect of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We would not rest on one poll, but we have assessed the support for the agreement and the determination of the people of Northern Ireland for all aspects of it to be implemented. We have put in place many of the mechanisms to assist decommissioning. The independent commission will take forward any submissions or proposals from those who hold illegal weapons for disposing of them for the better and greater good of Northern Ireland.

Is not one option, which is not in front of us, parking the setting-up of the Executive until autumn or even 12 months' time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that moves need to be made, we should establish the Executive even when decommissioning has not taken place, excluding Sinn Fein until it comes on board, because the IRA is engaged in that project?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the possible implications of parking the agreement. That is why the Government seek to do all that they can to continue the discussions and to keep momentum in the process. The talks in which the Government are involved are all about seeking to implement all aspects of the agreement. That is what the talks between the individual parties—bilateral, trilateral and multilateral talks—are all about. It is for the parties themselves to address the issues that continue to divide them. That is how we can begin to move this whole process forward. We must continue to talk, rather than encourage people to walk.

A recent opinion poll showed that the bulk of the people wanted decommissioning. Is there evidence of any democratic country having in government parties supported by armed terrorism? Is it not a fallacious road to travel to discuss normalisation, equating the weapons of terror with the weapons of the state?

We have to make sufficient progress on all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. No one in the House would disagree that illegally held weapons should be decommissioned. The normalisation process, as the hon. Gentleman defined it, is not about equivalence of weapons. We must look at how we can move the process forward, which means that everyone must look at fresh ideas to see how we can bring about a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to start to talk the language of success and peace, rather than looking at the dark side and the downside of what is happening.

My right hon. Friend might recall that at the last Question Time, I asked him about the purchase of decommissioned weaponry from the paramilitary groups, and the Secretary of State said that she would refer the matter to the decommissioning commission in Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend report any progress on that matter?

The progress of which I would advise the House is that that matter has been referred to the independent commission. It is considering it, and it is a matter for the commission.

Given that Sinn Fein-IRA and some of the loyalist paramilitaries have said on more than one occasion that they have no intention of decommissioning their arms, is not a halt to the release of prisoners long overdue, as we have been saying since the end of last year, until the paramilitaries honour the obligation to begin the decommissioning process?

The Secretary of State is empowered to make judgments about the quality of the ceasefire and whether the IRA and other groups associated with the talks are still on ceasefire. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on whether he wants the Good Friday agreement to work or to fail. By being so stark in his choices, he would lead us down the road of failure. The Government are determined to succeed and will build on what the previous Administration sought to do by talking to those parties as well.

What measures she is taking to assist pensioners in Northern Ireland. [81284]

In line with the long-standing policy of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in social security matters, pensioners in Northern Ireland benefit fully from the Government's strategy to provide effective help for today's pensioners, including the introduction of the minimum income guarantee and winter fuel payments. They will also share in the Chancellor's £1 billion pensioner package.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it possible to estimate the number of pensioner households in Northern Ireland that will benefit from the Chancellor's recent Budget package?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. There are 250,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland, and each and every one of them will benefit from the Chancellor's package. With the changes in income tax, 200,000 out of 250,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland will not pay income tax. That is good news for the country, and good news for the pensioners in Northern Ireland.

Does the Minister know that one in four pensioners in Northern Ireland are on income support? Although there is parity of benefits in Northern Ireland, unfortunately the price of food and fuel for everyone, including pensioners, is much dearer. In addition, there is no concessionary travel in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister please take notice of the report of the Transport Sub-Committee, which was published today? It suggests a national concessionary fare across the whole of the United Kingdom perhaps helped by local authorities.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I take his point about the number of pensioners in Northern Ireland on income support. The Government introduced the minimum income guarantee. The minimum income is £75 a week for single pensioners and £116 a week for couples.

The Department of the Environment, in conjunction with a number of district councils, is examining pilot schemes for free concessionary travel.

How many people have started the new deal programme in Northern Ireland. [81285]

By the end of March 1999, 12,788 people had started the new deal programme in Northern Ireland.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What role is the voluntary sector playing in the new deal in Northern Ireland, particularly given the widespread anxiety in that sector about the reduction in the extremely important action for community employment programme? Can the new deal help to plug that gap?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. That has been a matter of concern to me from my first day in office in Northern Ireland. As a result, I have established a cross-departmental dedicated team to write to and contact all the 188 ACE groups in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that, only this week, I have sent letters saying that the Secretary of State has approved an extra £10 million this year for voluntary and other groups for the transfer from ACE to new deal.

I welcome the Minister's statement that most ACE groups have been assimilated into the new deal. Will he assure us that ACE groups that have not been so will be contacted by those implementing the new deal to ensure that no one misses out? Is not the most successful achievement of the new deal the fact that those who have been doing the double have been flushed out, and we have managed to reduce the numbers registering unemployed?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Only a few months ago, 60 ACE programmes signed up with the new deal. After intensive efforts by the dedicated team, there are now almost 160. Only 18 ACE groups have not been transferred. My officials across Departments are daily involved in negotiating with ACE groups. They provide me with a weekly report on progress. The permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland Departments intend to provide the Secretary of State with a progress report every fortnight. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that we are taking this matter seriously. ACE groups are being contacted, and we have met their concerns with the extra finance and resources that the new deal will provide.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 April.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

In the light of the recent bombings in Brixton and the east end, will my right hon. Friend send a clear message from the House that this country is proud of its multicultural communities, and values the huge contribution made by members of ethnic minorities to business, culture, and much more? Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House, first, that the Government will do all that they can to protect the communities that are threatened by these vicious right-wing groups, and, secondly, that they are determined to fight the racism from which the violence flows?

The attacks have been attacks not just on the Afro-Caribbean and Bangladeshi communities; we regard them as attacks on the whole of British society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We are resolved, and I believe that the British people are resolved, to show utter determination in defeating the scourge of racism.

Let me say two more things. First, I congratulate the police on pursuing their investigations with the utmost vigour. Secondly, we can be proud of the way in which the communities in Brixton and Tower Hamlets—whatever their background—have come together to condemn these outrages, and to give the police every assistance.

I entirely agree with what has been said by the Prime Minister and by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). I went to Brick lane on Monday, and what the Prime Minister said is absolutely correct.

May I reiterate the Opposition's support for the NATO action in Kosovo? Does the Prime Minister agree that, although it is deeply distressing when civilians are hurt and killed—as has happened again—President Milosevic must not think that those tragic consequences will weaken our resolve in the House of Commons to ensure that the NATO action succeeds? Will he comment on this morning's reports that there are difficulties over the implementation of an oil embargo, particularly the legal basis for it? Does he agree that the rules of engagement, and their basis, must be absolutely clear?

I certainly agree with the latter point. Of course the rules of engagement must be legally clear: that is why NATO is currently studying the best way in which to implement the embargo. Let me point out, however, that the European Union has agreed an oil embargo, and that the European Union associates—which include Serbia's neighbours, and countries such as Cyprus—are already associating themselves with it. The United States, contrary to some reports, is implementing a comprehensive trade ban that includes oil. We in this country will do all that we can to ensure that the economic sanctions imposed on Serbia are effective, and that no oil gets through to the Serbian military.

As for the events that occurred overnight, we take every single precaution that we possibly and reasonably can to prevent civilian casualties. We deeply regret them when they occur; but they are not the only tale of casualties overnight. There are also the 200 Kosovar Albanian men who were massacred in a village near Djakovica, adding to earlier reports of the previous killing of some 470 men in the same place.

The difference, quite simply, is this. Whenever there are civilian casualties as a result of allied bombs, they are by error. We regret them, and we take precautions to avoid them. The people whom the Serb paramilitaries are killing are killed deliberately. That is the difference between us and them.

We must carry on with this action, utterly united, utterly resolved to see it through to a successful conclusion.

While I agree with the Prime Minister's last point, some concerns have been expressed that an oil embargo would be legal under international law only if it were introduced on an essentially voluntary basis, and that, if it is only voluntary, it will not be effective. There are reports that many countries have agreed to an embargo—the Prime Minister has just reiterated that—but that Russia has not agreed to it, and that it may be easy to get round it. How effective will it be if it is not a complete embargo?

The simple answer is that it will be as effective as we can possibly make it, consistent with proper rules of engagement and international law. I should point out to those who raise Russia specifically that the sea is not the only route for oil into Serbia, and that Russia is not the only or even the main supplier. Therefore, there is a very great deal more that we can do. We have some experience of enforcing these types of embargoes in different parts of the world, and I believe that that experience will be well used in this case.

Finally on Kosovo, on the question of ground troops, last week, Government sources said that NATO would not consider the option of a ground operation for another four to five weeks. Yet is it not the case that the length of time required to assemble and deploy troops, and then to allow the refugees to return before the winter, means that any decision on the use of ground troops would have to be made in the very near future—in the next couple of weeks? Therefore, is it not true that, if we want to take up that option, time is running out?

It is certainly right that time is a factor; but it is for precisely that reason that NATO charged the Secretary-General of NATO and NATO planners with reviewing and updating all assessments and all options. That is what we agreed at the NATO summit, and that is what is now being done.

Will the Prime Minister congratulate our young United Kingdom chess players, who have won so many world titles and records recently? Does he agree that the best way of making the United Kingdom the top chess nation in the world is to recognise chess as a sport, and to end the discrimination of United Kingdom chess players, who suffer from lack of training facilities, lack of finance and very little organisation of chess games in schools? Is it not time that we joined the 100-plus nations of the world that already recognise chess as a sport and fund it accordingly?

It is at a moment like this that I look along the Front Bench in search of inspiration, but do not find any. [Interruption.] Yes, I have just located the inspiration, but, unfortunately, she is rather far away from me. My hon. Friend's comments sound thoroughly persuasive. Perhaps the safest thing for me to say is that I shall make further inquiries and write to her.

Given that, for the first half of this Parliament, Labour adopted the Conservatives' spending plans, and that, for the second half of this Parliament, the Conservatives intend to adopt Labour's spending plans, would not voters in next week's elections be justified in concluding that, when it comes to delivery of public services, there ain't much difference between them?

I agree that the Liberal Democrats have certainly been consistent throughout: they have consistently said that they will spend more money, and more money, and more money. What they have not ever done consistently is say how all those bills are to be paid. The idea that they will all be paid with that 1 p on income tax—which, as I understand it, is not even Liberal policy any more—is nonsense. I suggest that people should vote for the party that has managed to get mortgage rates to their lowest level for more than 30 years, that has sorted out public finances, and that is now making the biggest ever investment into schools and hospitals.

The record actually shows that we were the only party at the general election to publish a fully costed manifesto. [Interruption.] That is absolutely correct; and, unlike Labour in opposition, we have always done so. Let us come now to the delivery — because the Prime Minister often tells us that it is not about inputs, but about outputs. Does not the record show that the right hon. Gentleman promised to make class sizes smaller, but that, for the majority of children, class sizes have become larger? He promised to bring down waiting lists, but waiting times are now at record levels. He promised to put more police on the beat, but the Government have cut the number of police in Britain. Does the Prime Minister really think that two years ago Britain voted to kick out the Tories in order to make our public services worse?

If I can just correct the right hon. Gentleman: first, we have reduced class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. There now are 130,000 pupils in classes of under 30 who would not have been otherwise and, for the first time, class sizes in primary schools are actually falling. We have reduced waiting lists and the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about waiting times, which we have also reduced.

As for the Liberal Democrats' costed spending plans, first, they can cost them in the certain knowledge that they will never have to carry them out. Secondly, they advocated spending less money than we are spending under our comprehensive spending review, so I suggest that people stick with their first instincts and vote Labour.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Home Office staff and the staff of Leeds city council on organising the smooth transfer and accommodation of Kosovan refugees in my constituency? Is it not an example that might be followed elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in making the arrangements work and thank the people of Leeds-Bradford and the surrounding area for the magnificent way in which they have welcomed the refugees from Kosovo. That is in the very best British tradition. We will certainly be taking further refugees from Kosovo. We also are probably doing as much if not more than any other nation out there in Macedonia and Albania to make sure that the refugees are looked after properly.

Does the Prime Minister recall my letter of 18 March concerning the proposed closure of the Thorn Lighting plant in Hereford with the loss of some 348 jobs and the transfer of some of the production to the Spennymoor plant in his constituency? Given that the local authority, the chamber of commerce and the trade unions are in talks with management trying to save the Hereford plant, and given that Spennymoor gets some Government grants that the Hereford plant does not receive, will the Prime Minister ensure that there is a level playing field for both factories?

Yes, I do recall the hon. Gentleman's letter of 18 March. Of course, any proposed closure is distressing, but it is of course a decision for the company. I understand that members of the local task force are due to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in the next few weeks. The chambers of commerce, the training and enterprise council and the Employment Service are ready to help, so I hope that they can be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Although I recognise that it is no consolation to those whose jobs are under threat, it is worth acknowledging that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by some 14 per cent. in the past year. We very much hope that we can help those who face redundancy and do everything that we can to assist them over the coming weeks.

Further to the earlier exchange on Serbia, does the Prime Minister agree that the welcome signs of division within the Serbian regime are indeed a direct result of the solidarity shown at the recent NATO summit? Will he assure me and the House that he will do everything possible to ensure that the strength of NATO is maintained with the simple humanitarian objective of allowing the refugees to return and rebuild their lives?

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the divisions now appearing in the Belgrade regime. It was Mr. Draskovic who said to his own people, only a couple of days ago, that his fellow leaders were simply lying:

"Lying to the people that any day now we are going to prevail over NATO, that NATO is about to collapse, and that Russia is on the verge of starting World War 3. But NATO has never been stronger and more homogenous".

I believe that that is a result of the NATO summit. What is important is that we demonstrate complete determination and resolve that we shall not rest until NATO's objectives are met, and until an international military force goes into Kosovo and allows those people to return to their homes in peace.

Will the Prime Minister guarantee that before he holds another referendum he will implement the recommendations of the Neill Committee on the fair conduct of referendums?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is due to publish a draft Bill on this matter shortly, but I point out to him that it was the Labour party that asked the Neill Committee specifically to look at these issues, after the previous Conservative Government refused to allow that. It will be our particular pride to introduce those recommendations.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, although the House and the whole world is united in horror at and opposition to the ethnic cleansing and brutality by Milosevic in Kosovo, the indiscriminate destruction of the infrastructure of Yugoslavia and the killing of innocent citizens—many of whom have been long opposed to President Milosevic—does nothing in the short run to help the refugees, and that in the view of many people, including me, that destruction and killing amount to a war crime in themselves?

I simply disagree with my right hon. Friend, for the reasons that I gave earlier. However, he prefaced his remarks by saying that whole world condemned the ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo. I simply ask my right hon. Friend what, in those circumstances, does NATO do? Do we stand by and let it happen, or do we act?

Use the United Nations.

My right hon. Friend shouts to me that we should use the United Nations. We know the reasons why the United Nations would not have given us the ability to act. Either we acted, or we stood aside and let the horror continue.

I received a letter today from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). It concerned a meeting that he attended with two women—Dr. Dobruna and Professor Kelmendi—just a few days ago. I shall read a section of that letter to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman said that the women told the meeting that although

"immediate events are obviously paramount, they mentioned that even by February of this year, 45 per cent. of Kosovan villages had been destroyed, and that documentary evidence exists to support this."

I ask my right hon. Friend also to look at the statements that were made on behalf of NATO and the allied forces today, which list just some of the appalling atrocities that have been carried out by the Serb forces. My right hon. Friend should read some of the accounts from the refugees, who include young women who have been raped and abused so badly that they will never now be able to have children. Is my right hon. Friend saying that we should stand aside and let that happen, in Europe? That would be the ultimate moral outrage.

Is it not true that, even though Scotland will have its own Parliament, English taxpayers' money will continue to go north of the border, that Scottish Members of Parliament will continue to come to Westminster to vote on English matters, and that one third of the Cabinet will be Scots? Can the Prime Minister sympathise with English people who want independence from Scotland? Can he support our slogan, "No representation without taxation"?

I had not thought that that was the policy of the Conservative party—although one can never be sure nowadays, as it tends to change quite quickly. However, I say to English nationalists what I say to Scottish nationalists: England and Scotland are stronger and better off together.

In bombing Yugoslavia, what distinction is made between bombing acceptable military targets and unacceptable civilian targets, and why are factories, bridges and televisions stations included in the first category rather than the second? Surely some distinction must be made between the two.

First, and by way of example, the bridges are used to transport Serb militia and troops, and they are a vital part of keeping Milosevic's war machine going. Secondly, as I have said already, the difference is that we do all that we can to avoid civilian casualties. The casualties inflicted by Milosevic are deliberate.

We cannot yet know how many people Milosevic has butchered in Kosovo, but I warn the House that the number will be very considerable. Day after day after day we hear from refugees tales of the residents of whole villages being rounded up and shot and of hundreds of young men being taken away never to be seen again. We must recognise that the only chance the refugees who have managed to escape will ever have will come if NATO continues its action and is successful. The best and most eloquent advocates for NATO action are the refugees themselves.

In the light of accumulating evidence about the environmental risks of genetically modified crops, mounting public anxiety and statements during the past 24 hours by Tesco and Unilever, does the Prime Minister still reject the idea that it would be sensible to ban those crops until research into them has been completed?

We are making sure that no crops or foods are available until they have been properly and rigorously tested. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is concern about the subject. However, a representative of Tesco, which he mentioned and which has said that it will withdraw GM foods, said on the radio this morning:

"It has absolutely nothing to do with safety or concerns about safety at all. We're well satisfied that the products we market have been exhaustively tested with regard to their human and environmental safety."

It is absolutely right that Tesco should take its own commercial decision. I have made clear the Government's position on GM foods, and we do not intend to change it.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that a day after the last time we discussed this matter on the Floor of the House, when he said that it was necessary to proceed on the basis of the best scientific evidence, English Nature, the Government body that advises him on these matters, wrote to him? The letter said:

"It is important that English Nature can be in a position to reassure the public that the technology is environmentally safe, with decisions being made on the basis of good … science. We cannot assure the public about this currently."

This month, new evidence has emerged from scientists that pollen from GM crops could spread more quickly than was previously thought. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not see common sense? Is the case not overwhelming for a ban on these crops until we have completed research?

Until research is completed, none of these crops can be made available. What the right hon. Gentleman asks for is already Government policy. He is trying to elide English Nature's concerns about biodiversity with food safety scares, and that is wrong. I am well aware that there will be a ready market for what he says in some parts of the media, but it is wrong.

It is precisely English Nature's concerns about biodiversity about which 1 am asking, and about which the Prime Minister has totally failed to answer. On his point about food retailers, does he accept that nearly all major food retailers have announced that they want to be able to sell GM-free products, for whatever reasons or motives? Is there not an opportunity there? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see the case for reassuring the public about the crops, can he not at least see the commercial sense in ensuring that the United Kingdom preserves a GM-free source of supply, at least until the effect on other crops is known? That is what a lot of people in this country want.

First, the right hon. Gentleman said that I had not answered his question. I have answered him specifically and plainly: no crops are available and no foods are available unless properly tested. Secondly, are he and his Front-Bench team really raising the issue of tougher labelling for GM foods? When in Government, he blocked labelling of GM foods. We introduced it.

We all know what the game is, so let me say to the country that I entirely know about, understand and sympathise with people's concerns about GM foods. However, if people study properly the scientific evidence, they will have to conclude three things: first, that there is no evidence that GM foods are unsafe; secondly, that there is evidence about biodiversity and its effects; and, thirdly, that that is why we should proceed with the greatest caution and the toughest regulation, which is precisely what we are doing. It would also be sensible if, before sending a signal to the whole biotechnology industry that we shall proceed on the basis not of science but of scares, we reflected on the fact that the argument should be presented in a more balanced way.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the National Assembly for Wales must work in the interests of all the people of Wales? Does he also agree that the only way to guarantee the implementation of the Government's programme to build a strong economy in Wales, to invest £1 billion extra in the national health service, to raise school standards and to give all pensioners free travel within three years, is to ensure a Labour majority in next week's Welsh election?

Go on, disagree.

I shall not disagree with that; I agree with it wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is additional money for the national health service and for schools, a better deal for pensioners and a 20 per cent. increase in child benefit—and you only get that under Labour.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing crisis in nursery education, with at least two pre-school playgroups or nursery schools closing every week? Will he confirm that it is his Government's policy both to restrict parental choice in nursery education and to throw many dedicated professional nursery school teachers and ancillary workers on the scrap heap?

That is nonsense. The Government are expanding nursery education. We have got rid of the discredited nursery voucher system introduced by the previous Government, and we are expanding child care and other provision for children at a rate matched by no other Government this century.

May I revert to the issue of public service output and delivery, and ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the report that, for the second year running, Labour-controlled South Tyneside council, which he knows is in one of the most deprived areas in the country, has been adjudged the best performing local authority in England? Will he join me in congratulating its councillors, officers and other employees, and encouraging them to continue their good work and show that a Labour local authority produces the goods, and produces the best?

I am happy to congratulate South Tyneside on its work, especially in helping young people and in education. On both counts, it stands among the best in the country.

On 10 April, the Chilean Government issued decree No. 209, which suspended all flights between Chile and the Falkland Islands. Will the Prime Minister now ask his Foreign Secretary to apologise for wrongly claiming that the suspension of that air link was a purely commercial decision by the airline, and will he tell the House, and the Falkland islanders, what formal protest he has made to the Chilean Government on behalf of the islanders, who are suffering greatly because of the Government's incompetence?

We have made it clear that we disagree with the decision, and we have made representations to the Chilean Government about it. The Pinochet decision is a matter for the law, and the law must take its course. I would hope that even the Conservative party would recognise that.

On the subject of education funding, is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks made today by the Tory leader of Cambridgeshire county council, who said that as the Government increase the standard spending assessment for education, he will reduce the county council's contribution, so the schools in my constituency will see no benefit from education spending? Can there be any reason why anyone who cares about education would ever vote Tory again?

That is the reality of Conservative education policy. They cut spending on education that is vital for children. It is all very well for Conservative Front Benchers to say that they are in favour of more education spending—or at least some of them, I am not sure how many—but the reality on the ground is the Conservative party moving further and further to the right.