If he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [145474]

The men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and those acting in their support provide an excellent service to the people of Northern Ireland, as recent successes against terrorism demonstrate. I know that the police service will continue to do so as the changes arising from the Patten report are implemented. I should like to add on a personal basis that they are embracing those changes with typical resilience and professionalism. It has been my great privilege to support them, including their Chief Constable, in their valiant work.

In view of the deadlock in the negotiations and the uncertain—to say the least—security position, will the Secretary of State, as his last official action in the Chamber, do a little more to lift the shadow from that brave, impartial and disciplined service still known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

The Government's aim throughout this process is to develop a modern police service in Northern Ireland that is both effective and representative of the community it serves, and that commands the widespread support and confidence that it needs to do its job effectively. The changes being implemented will, in the Government's view, achieve that. The Government have made it clear that they are committed to the radical vision expressed by Patten, which, in our view, will contribute as much, if not more than anything else, to long-term peace and stability for all the people in Northern Ireland.

May I say to my right hon. Friend that very many people in both communities in Northern Ireland will view his statement today with deep dismay and regret? He has always given of his best in ensuring the interests of the people of both communities in Northern Ireland and he will be sorely missed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. What no one should underestimate is the radical transformation that is already under way in policing in Northern Ireland. The Patten report is no longer just theory; it is becoming a daily reality. With the police ombudsman in place, the oversight commissioner at work, new district commanders appointed, the district command structure being put in place, a new recruitment agency to recruit new recruits to the Police Service of Northern Ireland almost in place, the severance scheme and the restructuring of headquarters, many changes are taking place now. That is why we have to resolve any remaining political difficulties and continue firmly with the tasks that we have set ourselves in bringing about the much-needed changes in policing in Northern Ireland.

May I first thank the Secretary of State for all the work that he has done in Northern Ireland in the past year or so, and tell him that many people appreciate the efforts that he has made? I say that although, as he knows, there are various issues on which we have disagreed, particularly policing. The proposals particularly to change the name of the RUC and the failure to recognise the service and the sacrifice of RUC members have caused very deep hurt within the community as a whole. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the police force is being undermined by the continuing uncertainty about particular aspects of policing.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial generous remarks.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has never sought to block the tremendous efforts that he and others have made to achieve a more inclusive police service in Northern Ireland? Will he also accept my congratulations on the tremendous work that he has done with and for the police, to ensure that the goal of a more inclusive force will one day be realised?

Certainly, one of the Government's proudest achievements—one of my own personal proudest achievements has been the contribution that I made in introducing it—has been the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which is leading to the creation of the new police service. The process of establishing the new service has begun and must continue. One cannot stop such a transformation in midstream. To do so would leave the police in Northern Ireland in limbo, with all the implications that that entails.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his was the right decision—indeed, the only tenable decision—in the circumstances? As he leaves office, will he acknowledge that the police reforms are in real danger of being all pain and no gain, especially if the Irish Government, the SDLP and Sinn Fein continue to refuse to recommend to young Catholic men and women that they join the new police force?

The greatest, most important gain to be secured from this process of change and this new beginning in policing that we are seeking to create is the development of a police service that wins the trust and respect of both sides, allowing the police to operate effectively right across the community and to tackle crime at its root, with the active support of both sides of the community rather than with the hostility or the sullen acquiescence that we have seen in the past, allowing the RUC to transform itself from the counter-terrorist organisation that it has been into the community-based, partnership-based police service that we want for the future.

When he expects decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in Northern Ireland to begin. [145475]

What undertakings by the Government remain to be fulfilled to enable verifiable total disarmament of terrorist weaponry. [145480]

Efforts are still continuing to seek a way forward to enable decommissioning to occur as soon as possible. For our part, the Government have met all our commitments, and continue to meet our commitments to take the steps necessary for full implementation of the agreement by June 2001.

For how much longer are Ministers going to fool themselves and, what is worse, the British people, over decommissioning? For how much longer are they going to allow illegal weapons and substances to exist and be held in the United Kingdom?

We have not given up—it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has perhaps given up—on the process. That is not what the people of Northern Ireland want. They want all the efforts made over recent days, months and years, by this and previous Administrations, to succeed. This is a difficult process. We hope that, with the encouragement of everyone with good will, we can take it to a satisfactory conclusion.

The Minister's optimism is understandable, but does not he agree that the hope may be false, especially when senior people in the paramilitary organisations are reported in the media as saying that there will be no decommissioning? The people of Northern Ireland are ware of that, after the recent attacks on Ebrington barracks and Claudy police station. Is it possible that we have been listening to our own spin, and that the republicans have rumbled us?

The recent attacks to which the hon. Gentleman refers have been attributed to the dissident republican movement, the Real IRA, as was yesterday's attack on Ebrington barracks. It is a matter not of believing spin but of looking at the hard reality and trying to find answers. No one said the task would be easy or without risks attached. That is the reality that we are dealing with. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know the mood in his constituency, which is for peace and for the removal of the past from Northern Ireland.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us with a particular interest in Northern Ireland, and especially those who belong to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, will greet with regret this morning's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? However, will he make it clear to the parties in Northern Ireland that they should redouble their efforts to achieve faster progress on all sides, and not use the Secretary of State's resignation as an excuse for further delay?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the sterling efforts and work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Select Committee has played an important role in exposing and examining a range of issues, and in helping the process in which we are involved. We need to move forward on the basis that the Government have set out but, more importantly, on the basis set out in the Good Friday agreement. That is what the people of Northern Ireland hold to and what they want to have delivered. We are determined to achieve that.

In view of the statement of the independent decommissioning commission that it is possible to achieve decommissioning by June 2001, does my right hon. Friend share my anxiety that the constant harping of the Conservative party makes the process more difficult?

I am not sure that I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about that: I am tempted to use a different word to describe my response, but perhaps I should not use it today. I have said before, from this Dispatch Box, that the weakness in the Opposition's position is that they claim to be part of a bipartisan approach but constantly seek to question every dot and comma of what the Government seek to do. The Labour party in opposition gave the previous Conservative Government support when the going was tough, and Conservative Members should do the same now.

Will the Minister confirm that, during the negotiations that led to the Belfast agreement, the Government's position was that it was a twin-track process, and that decommissioning would be delivered when a political agreement was delivered? Two and half years on will he confirm that not a single ounce of Semtex or a single bullet has been delivered by Sinn Fein-IRA?

Of course I can confirm that. That is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have redoubled their efforts over recent days to move the process forward. I recognise that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants what I want for Northern Ireland, and that is a peaceful settlement. He comes at the problem from a direction that is different from mine, but I know that he shares that objective. I think that he should give encouragement to the process and put some hope into it, because—and I repeat the point—that is what most people in his constituency and in Northern Ireland want. They want peace, and no more violence.

The Minister will be aware that it is widely believed that political pressure is being put on the armed forces to move towards demilitarisation in Northern Ireland in return for perhaps at last some movement on decommissioning. Does he accept that this would be highly dangerous and that Ministers will be responsible if such changes in security lead to loss of life?

I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has not learned any lessons from his past experience serving as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. No political pressure is put on our security advisers. We take their advice. It is a process of consultation; it is considering all of the options that are open to us. We have said time and again that we take the best security advice available before we move. The advice that we receive is first class and we have always responded to it.

If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [145476]

The main paramilitary groups are maintaining their ceasefires; however, there remains a continued threat from dissident paramilitaries, as evidenced by recent attacks on the security forces at Cookstown, the recent bombs discovered in South Armagh and Claudy, and yesterday's mortar attack on Ebrington. These are serious developments. However, the security forces are ready and capable of dealing with these threats, and they deserve our highest praise for all their brave efforts.

In the light of those two incidents, and in the absence of any real decommissioning in Northern Ireland, is it not wholly inappropriate and undesirable for so-called demilitarisation even to be considered at this stage, let alone progress?

I think that I recounted more than two incidents. The hon. Gentleman should look at my answer. There have been too many incidents in recent days and recent weeks. This is a very serious development, but the security forces are ready to tackle it. It is not a case of demilitarisation, as the hon. Gentleman avers; it is a question of seeking normalisation within Northern Ireland. It must be part of a sequenced process. It is what all of the talks have been about, and it is what our current efforts in seeking a resolution of this very difficult impasse are about.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent incidents in north Belfast, Coleraine, Cookstown and Armagh prove yet again that certain individuals in Northern Ireland are intent on wrecking the peace process and are by their very actions undermining the best wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland; that their actions are a threat to democracy itself; and that we in this House must give the Ministers in Northern Ireland every possible support in achieving a lasting peace for Northern Ireland?

I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. What those dissident factions are doing, and what the so-called loyalist paramilitary groups are doing by carrying out their sectarian attacks on innocent Catholics, is to make a serious attempt to undermine the peace process. That is their objective. We are determined that they will not succeed, and I hope that the whole House will support every effort that is being made at present by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, including the security forces, which are showing their determination, to achieve the objective set out in the Good Friday agreement.

Does the Minister agree that there can be no satisfactory security situation until there is a meaningful handing in of weapons and explosives? Is not decommissioning the longest-running political soap of all time? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Northern Ireland as a whole want decommissioning? When will he set a meaningful timetable to achieve it?

It would be too nice to call that a rant. There was not one word of a solution in that question. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for many long years. He will know that this issue is not easily resolved. Decommissioning is a voluntary process, and it must be done on the basis of reaching agreement. The Good Friday agreement itself is very clear on what the objective is: it is the removal of all illegally held weapons. That is what the present Government seek, and it is what previous Governments sought. Hopefully, we shall achieve it.

Has not the Secretary of State's regrettable and impending resignation indicated how vulnerable we all are when the press decide that they a want a politician's head on a platter? [Interruption.] Can I express the hope that those same editors who have called for my right hon. Friend's resignation will now turn their attention to writing articles congratulating him on the work that he did in Northern Ireland to resolve the problems of conflict?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend takes time to read The Irish News, the Belfast Telegraph or the News Letter, but if he has had the opportunity to do so over recent days, he will have seen the balanced and constructive way in which those newspapers have approached the issue of police reform with regard to the current talks. I hope that other parts of our media will respond to the very positive, constructive approach adopted by the newspapers in Northern Ireland.

May I record our appreciation for the contribution that the Secretary of State has made to the Province? In sometimes difficult times, we believe that his work has brought peace closer and for that, the House and the Province are in his debt.

The important thing is to focus on the task at hand and not to be distracted by extraneous influences. That is the way in which the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been approaching this in recent days as well as over a longer period. The hon. Gentleman will be only too conscious of the sterling efforts made by the political parties in Northern Ireland in those discussions. I think that they are focused on what they are seeking to achieve, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support them in that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the atrocious pipe-bomb attacks that have been taking place with such frequency throughout Northern Ireland? Will he confirm the degree of sophistication in the recent major bomb attacks that were launched on the security forces? Will he also confirm that the security forces were so able to deal with the situation in Claudy, that while they found the hoax bomb that the IRA planted at the front gate, they did not find the real one which had been planted at the back gate until the IRA rang up and told them to start looking for it again? Does that not indicate that there should be no further diminution in the capacity of the security forces to seek out intelligence, which would mean keeping the towers in South Armagh, and enough troops and police on the ground to secure the people of Northern Ireland?

The Chief Constable has, in recent days, indicated through attribution who planted those devices, and has also said that they are very sophisticated. We are dealing with a very determined, nasty and evil force that knows what its objectives are. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question about removal of intelligence-gathering means and the security profile, we have said that that must always be part of the discussions between the parties and those who have illegally held weapons. It is about seeking the removal of all illegally held weapons in Northern Ireland, and normalisation can proceed apace on the back of that.

How can anyone claim that the security situation or the peace process are holding when so-called "punishment beatings" are on the increase and becoming more severe? Are there not some parts of the Province that are practically unpoliced, despite the valour of the RUC?

I would not say that parts of Northern Ireland are "unpoliced", but parts are difficult to police because of an unwillingness by certain parts of the community, for whatever reason, to co-operate with the police. That is one reason why the Good Friday agreement highlighted the importance of a different policing approach for Northern Ireland, on the back of all the other things in that agreement. Reform of the RUC is about achieving that type of acceptable policing service throughout Northern Ireland. That requires the co-operation of the community just as much as other changes mentioned in the Patten report that the Government put forward in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and are now seeking to implement.

In the light of the serious attacks mentioned by the Minister—multiple murder bids on members of the security forces—and while it has been claimed that dissident members of the republican movement are responsible, no one can hide behind the reality that such actions could not have been taken without at least the compliance of the Provisional IRA. The weaponry of the Provos—Semtex, bombs and guns—have been used in the hands of republicans. Is it not time for a proactive security initiative against those dissidents and republicans, to allow a real peace process that all the people of Northern Ireland can enjoy?

The assertions at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question are not borne out by the assessments of the Chief Constable and our security advisers. I would rather trust their judgment than that of the hon. Gentleman.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 January.

As the House is well aware, I had a meeting this morning with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has since announced his decision to resign from the Government later today. I would like to pay the warmest possible tribute to him for the tireless efforts he has made to secure peace in Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and also for his personal courage and sense of duty in coming to the House this afternoon to answer questions on Northern Ireland before departing the Government.

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of this Question Time to spell out the truth to the House of Commons and to the country regarding the events surrounding the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

I accept that the reply of the Secretary of State, through his office, to inquiries from a newspaper at the weekend was misleading and resulted in the House of Commons and the Lobby being misled—and I accepted his resignation on that basis.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the immense contribution of many individuals and organisations in the preparations for national holocaust memorial day—the first of which will take place this Saturday, 27 January? On that day, we can remember all the victims of the holocaust, learn the lessons of the holocaust for today's society, and stand together to confront racism, anti-semitism and intolerance, wherever they may occur.

Hear, hear.

I entirely agree. National holocaust day is an important innovation, which I hope and believe has the support of all right hon. and hon. Members. It will allow us to commemorate dreadful acts of racism—particularly those in the 20th century—and serve as a reminder to young people in particular that the events of the second world war and the racial genocide that was exhibited then should never be repeated in humankind.

I agree with the Prime Minister's sentiments about national holocaust day, when we will join together across parties to remember the terrible events of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken.

I do not suppose that I ever expected the right hon. Gentleman to behave graciously at all on the resignation of my right hon. Friend, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that I believe that the job done by my right hon. Friend in Northern Ireland well merited his position as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think he has made an enormous contribution to it; indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that I doubt whether the process in Northern Ireland would have been sustained so well but for his commitment. I therefore believe it was right that he occupied that position, and I also believe that he is a bigger man than many of his critics.

The fact is that to reappoint in September 1999 a disgraced Minister 10 months after he was forced to resign, in breach of every convention and precedent, was a demonstration of the arrogance with which the Prime Minister wields his power. To spare himself and the country going through this a third time, will the Prime Minister now guarantee that his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool will not be running the election campaign of the Labour party and will not return to office in any Government led by him?

My right hon. Friend has already made that clear in the statement that he gave earlier. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think my right hon. Friend has done the right thing; I think that he has done the honourable thing. It is a long tradition in this House that when someone does that, we pay tribute to it. I am only sorry that once again the Leader of the Opposition has lived down to my expectations.

The right hon. Member for Hartlepool has done the right thing, but it is a pity that the Prime Minister's judgment led him to have to do it twice within the space of one Parliament. Does this not go wider than the matter of the right hon. Gentleman, because he has been central to everything that the Prime Minister has done? It was the right hon. Gentleman who picked the Prime Minister out; the right hon. Gentleman who briefed the press for him; the right hon. Gentleman who stabbed the Chancellor in the back for him; the right hon. Gentleman who spun all of his campaigns for him. Is not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's statement sadly could not be relied upon the reason not only that he has had to go, but that he has been at the heart of the entire new Labour project?

I think the Leader of the Opposition probably wrote most of that before my right hon. Friend resigned; he just forgot to change the script. I repeat that I believe it was right that my right hon. Friend came back into Government as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I honestly believe that, in the broad sweep of history, his contribution to that process will be far greater than what has happened in the past 24 hours, tragic though that is.

This is not about the broad sweep of history; it is about the conduct of the Government—the disgraceful conduct—of the Government. Has this not told us everything we need to know, not about the right hon. Member for Hartlepool but about the way in which the Government do their business? The Prime Minister said that they would be purer than pure and, as with every other pledge, he has failed to deliver. When asked to choose between high standards of government and the low politics of his cronies, he has unerringly chosen the latter. He has set those standards himself. In every incomplete answer in the House, in every distorted accusation and in every piece of baseless spin, the Prime Minister has set the standards of the Government. In a Government where standards of truth, honesty and integrity have taken second place to spin and smear, is he not truly the first among equals?

I really think that by that performance the right hon. Gentleman diminishes himself far more than he diminishes anybody else—[Interruption.] I believe that. I made it clear that if people did something wrong, they would pay the penalty; and my right hon. Friend has paid the penalty—that is true. I also believe that he can be very proud of his record and the contribution that he made while he was in Government. As for the rest of the nonsense the Leader of the Opposition has spoken, I have no intention of getting into it.

That was the shabbiest contribution from a Leader of the Opposition in living memory.

My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right to raise the concerns of his constituents and to pay tribute to their skill and productivity. They are among some of the most highly productive and skilled workers anywhere in the country—or, indeed, the whole of Europe. We therefore very much regret the discussions that are presently going on in the Corus company. We shall do everything that we can to avoid that situation, and we have already made that clear to the company itself.

Does the Prime Minister agree that if there is an error of judgment at work in the Chamber this afternoon, it is perhaps the error of judgment that fails to acknowledge that the Prime Minister, as a result of this morning's events, has confirmed that Ministers of the Crown must not just be beyond reproach, but be seen to be beyond reproach? Does he agree that one of the practical implications of today's events is that the ministerial code of conduct should be reviewed with the specific aim of seeking to further public confidence in the political process as a whole?

I do not believe it is necessary to review the code; it is necessary to make judgments under it. I think that the code is indeed justified in its own terms. I thank the right hon. Gentleman, however, for the tone of the rest of his remarks, which stand in contrast with the Conservative Opposition, who, I suspect, have for some weeks tried to get out an argument on policy and failed, and are all too happy to turn to something else.

May I further ask the Prime Minister a question on policy, and a very important policy it is, too—the continuation of the Northern Ireland peace process? Given the exchanges earlier this afternoon in the Chamber, will he confirm that the momentum of the Government remains undiminished in seeking to make the progress that both sides of the House want, but to which only two parties have given voice in the House this afternoon?

I want to place on record the importance of the Northern Ireland peace process, yet again. Whatever the difficulties and whatever the obstacles in the way of its completion, Northern Ireland today is a better and more prosperous place than it was a few years ago, before that peace process came about. Of course—because it is a process, not an event—it will take an enormous amount of work, and, of course, it takes immense political courage by those involved, but I am sure that it is better to be involved in pushing the process on than to stand aside and hope that it will fail. I have no doubt at all that, for the people in Northern Ireland, the peace process still represents the only conceivable chance of the stable and decent future that they deserve.

Since last week when my right hon. Friend told the House that he had had no application from the Americans for a nuclear base in Yorkshire, my constituents have been made fearful by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I have told them that they should write to him and tell him about his error of judgment, but what can my right hon. Friend say to my constituents to put their minds at rest?

I can assure my hon. Friend—as, indeed, I said in the exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition last week —that when we get a proposal, we will consider it carefully and make our decisions on it, but our closeness to our American allies is well known. However, this is in the box marked "Handle with care"—which is what we will do.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the recent increase in police numbers in Hampshire has merely restored the force to its 1998 levels? We are still 90 police officers under budget and a further 95 short on recruitment. Although the package for the Metropolitan police is welcome, does he realise that the offer of a free rail season ticket is inducing officers who work in Eastleigh to leave the Hampshire force and commute to London? Will he assure the House that he will introduce as soon as possible a comprehensive, flexible package for police officers in Hampshire so that we can recruit and retain the officers that we need to police the area properly?

We are, in fact, awaiting a response from the Police Negotiating Board to our proposals, which are designed to attract and recruit officers in areas such as Eastleigh. Although those areas are not within the London region, they are none the less areas with buoyant levels of employment where house prices are high. We are waiting for the board to come back to us on those proposals.

Bolton hospitals have the second-highest mortality rate in the north-west and the eighth highest in the country, according to a recent report. The Wigan and Bolton health authority was the second farthest away from target for health funding in 1997. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents and those who live in similarly deprived areas deserve better targeting for health expenditure in the future?

It is indeed important that we manage to put the extra investment in the health service into areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend. One reason that we know how the different areas now compare in terms of health performance is because we publish the data. One reason why we are able to see whether, for example, similar hospitals in similar areas are performing differently is because we have conducted and published a review of those data.

Is not the Prime Minister seriously concerned that he presides over a political system in which it is possible for a very rich man to purchase for £10 million the foreign and economic policy and choice of leader of a major political party? In view of today's events, what does he propose to do to stop rich people seeking to purchase political influence in that way?

I was not sure initially where the hon. Gentleman's question was leading, but if it is the case that someone has for £10 million purchased the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) as leader of the Conservative party, I am surprised he ever made the money in the first place.

I think my right hon. Friend is aware that yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and I returned from the west bank and the Gaza strip. The visit was organised by War on Want, and we had the opportunity to meet President Arafat and representatives of the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry.

I concur entirely that it is important that the peace negotiations get back under way in the middle east. Indeed, quite apart from reasons of stability in the middle east, there is the knock-on effect that instability there has on all countries in the region and on western countries, including our own. I believe that it is important that those peace talks resume, because the one thing that we have learned from our own peace process in Northern Ireland is that, if these processes are not solved or at least managed, they slip backwards very fast indeed.

Has this country got its priorities right when million-pound cheques of public subsidy are given to large agribusiness holdings, which do not need them, while small and efficient family farms, which are the bedrock of rural life, are going out of business in their droves?

I know that a debate has often gone on about the levels of subsidy to large and small farms. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has particular cases in mind, but I emphasise to him that, overall, we in this country pay out about £3,000 million a year by way of subsidy to the whole farming industry. Incidentally, that is more than we pay out to all the other industries of the country put together.

May I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and make my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware of the serious concern on Teesside about the threatened job losses in Corus? He will be aware of the discussions that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Wales have had with the Corus management. He will also be aware that the value of the pound is more in equilibrium with the euro and the deutschmark and that our skills and work force are second to none, so is it not appropriate to tell Corus's management that they should think, think and think again?

What my hon. Friend says is entirely right. We have very much urged that course upon the Corus management. There are difficulties with certain manufacturing companies as a result of the strength of the pound or the weakness of the euro over the past few months. That problem has somewhat abated now, and that is why I hope that Corus uses that as an opportunity to rethink this policy.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, yesterday, British Sugar announced the closure of the Bardney factory in my constituency and of other sugar factories around the country? Sugar beet has been one of the few buoyant sectors in agriculture. It is being put at risk in the atmosphere of uncertainty caused by the everything but arms initiative and quota arrangements where the Government's message, at best, has been mixed.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his good, fair share.

I am aware of the announcement that was made yesterday, although I do not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the reasons for it being made. However, in respect of agriculture, farmers have been facing a very difficult situation over the past few years, and that is for three reasons primarily. First, there has been a collapse in commodity prices, not particularly in relation to the industry that he mentioned but in others. Secondly, farmers have had the problems of BSE. Thirdly, they have had to deal with the problems of the very strong pound.

Will my right hon. Friend take no lessons from the party of Neil Hamilton, Lord Archer and Jonathan Aitken, but continue resolutely with record public spending on health, education and other public services and warn the public of the dangers of the £16 billion worth of cuts from the Conservative party?

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are very big choices—the last thing that the Conservatives ever want to discuss—before the country. There is stability in economic policy versus a return to the levels of interest rates, debt, mortgage repossessions and unemployment seen under the previous Administration. There is 1 million extra jobs versus 3 million unemployed. There is the extra investment in public services versus the £16 billion worth of cuts in public services. Whatever spring in their step the Conservatives have today, when it gets to those big choices, I can assure them that they will lose and we will win.

On 25 February 1998, I asked the Prime Minister to come to Ribble Valley to see for himself the plight of the countryside, but he was too busy to come. Since then, things have got decidedly worse, with more post office closures, local rural schools closing—one closed in my constituency only last year—the highest petrol taxes anywhere in Europe, country pursuits now facing extinction and farming facing the worst crisis in more than 60 years.

First, let me put the hon. Gentleman right on a few facts. Yes, it is true that there have been closures of rural post offices: there were about 3,000 closures under the previous Conservative Government and that process has continued for reasons with which we are all familiar, but the current Government are putting in additional investment to try to give rural post offices a future. On the issue of rural schools, I honestly do not know how he or any other Conservative Member has the cheek to go on about the closures—the Conservatives closed hundreds of rural schools, whereas the Labour party is putting investment into our schools. As for fuel duty, I shall point out only one fact: in the last Parliament, there was a greater increase in fuel duty than there has been in the current Parliament. Those are the facts.

May I tell my right hon. Friend that in my constituency youth unemployment has fallen by 73 per cent. since the advent of the Labour Government? Last week, employers expressed deep concern about the Conservatives' threats to abolish the new deal. Will my right hon. Friend give further reassurance that the new deal will continue to be an important part of Labour's programme?

The new deal will certainly remain a very important part of the Government's programme because it has helped to cut youth unemployment. Long-term youth unemployment has fallen by about 70 per cent. We remember the days when hundreds of thousands of this county's young people had no hope; the new deal has given them hope. The new deal has provided investment in our schools. How many Members of Parliament, including Conservative Members, have got extra investment in their local schools as a result of the new deal? It has also helped many lone parents to get back into work when they want to do so.

The Prime Minister may be aware that the UK Parliament has been overtaken in the use of new technology by other bodies such as the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Given his public commitment to placing the UK at the forefront of the information age, does he believe that his Government could and should do more to support the UK Parliament, so that citizens can properly engage with representatives in this House?

As something of a novice in the new technology, I can certainly undertake to discuss that matter with my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Of course, it is important for this Parliament to set a good example in the use of new technology. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that support for such technology is important for every single part of our country. I am happy to support him in his endeavours in this place.