To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the peace process. [24620]

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent meetings he has had about the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [24630]

Since I last answered questions in the House, there has been one further meeting of exploratory dialogue with the loyalist parties and there have been two with Sinn Fein. On each of those occasions, I have led the Government team. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State also had an informal meeting with Mr. Adams of Sinn Fein in Washington yesterday. On each of those occasions, we emphasised our commitment to the peace process and the key importance to that process of a substantial decommissioning of illegally held weapons together with progress on a range of other issues.

I am grateful for that answer. Does the Minister agree that the White House conference on investment in Northern Ireland is a very good idea and that, indeed, the White House should be congratulated on holding that conference, which the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) are attending? Was not the meeting yesterday between the Secretary of State and the president of Sinn Fein inevitable at some stage, now that terrorism has, fortunately, ended in Northern Ireland? Will not such talks be on an on-going basis, bearing in mind the qualification made by the Minister?

First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the White House has acted very constructively in holding a conference, which follows the investment conference held by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Belfast in December. It is being held to try to bring jobs and investment to Northern Ireland, which is indeed a very important purpose. It is quite clear also that that purpose will best be achieved by the establishment of a permanent peace. In the context of the conference in Washington, it was proper that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met Mr. Adams to make clear the relationship between peace, economic investment and jobs and to make it clear that the only way in which peace can be founded soundly is by seeing the decommissioning of illegally held arms taking place.

Can my hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government do everything in their power to ensure that in their objective of appeasing or seeking the acquiescence of the minority of the minority community, they do not alienate the law-abiding majority on whose support the long-term political future of democratic institutions and stability in the Province depend?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I am not in the business either of alienating or of appeasing. I am seeking to build on a situation in which there is a cessation of violence to try to ensure, through exploratory dialogue, that we can see the beginning of a genuine decommissioning of illegally held arms. There is not a Member of the House who would not agree that, at the end of day, peace must be established on the basis of illegally held arms being taken out of the Northern Ireland equation. We have made it quite clear to those to whom we are speaking in Sinn Fein and the loyalist parties that if they wish to proceed to substantive political dialogue in Northern Ireland, substantial decommissioning of arms would have to take place.

Is the Minister concerned with the changing stance of Dick Spring from that in December 1993 and June 1994, when he talked not only about a cessation of violence but about a handing over of weapons, along with the statement of Albert Reynolds, who is calling for the decommissioning of legally held firearms by servants of the state? Why did the Minister suggest pulling out of talks with representatives of a loyalist paramilitary faction because they were threatening to shoot drug dealers, while continuing to talk with representatives of those who had shot a drug dealer just two weeks ago?

I have made it clear all along that the basis of exploratory dialogue is that it is carried out with parties that do not condone or support the use of violence. When there has been any such suggestion, I have challenged the parties about it. Indeed, earlier this week, when there were suggestions that intimidatory action might be being taken in one quarter, I made it clear that I would not speak to parties that in any way appeared to condone it. Certainly, one of the parties and, I suspect, both, have since said that they do not condone such violence. It is right that we make it clear that, in a civilised society, there is no justification for anyone taking the law into his own hands at any time.

"It is a very important principle of parity of esteem in democratic dialogue that everybody should approach discussion on the same basis, solely on that of their electoral mandate and not by reference to any implied pressure they can exert because of the existence of arms in the hands of associated organisations. In order to achieve parity of esteem and position those arms must be taken out of commission."

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there has been a welcome abatement of terrorism, it is ridiculous for the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to talk about an end to terrorism, because the IRA clearly still has a massive arsenal and could easily redeploy it in a matter of hours? Does my hon. Friend accept that it is essential that, before the IRA is admitted to round table talks, the decommissioning process should be well under way?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that any steps taken since the cessation of violence have been taken as a direct response to the lowering of the security risk in Northern Ireland. None of them is irreversible, and that is an important part of the response that has been made.

May I present the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who is attending the investment conference in Washington?

"military machines are up, they are cohesive. If they decide … to go again they could do so".

At the moment, we are in an exploratory dialogue, the purpose of which is to explore such questions. The two sessions that I have had with Sinn Fein have concentrated largely not only on how decommissioning might take place but on the reason for it and why it is an essential part of the peace process. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those talks are not on a single-issue agenda; other topics can be, and have been, raised. I have told Sinn Fein and the loyalists that there are other topics that I believe they will wish to raise with me, and exploratory dialogue will continue in the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his plans for expanding the economy of Northern Ireland during the next 12 months. [24621]

Government's role is to provide the right conditions and the right support for the private sector to create economic growth. In Northern Ireland, we are helping companies to become more competitive, building up management and work force skills, supporting innovation, developing an enterprise culture and encouraging inward investment and tourism.

How very interesting. Why is the Minister not prepared to proclaim these plans for inward investment and enterprise culture on behalf of the Conservative candidate in the North Down by-election? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which Minister from the Northern Ireland team is going to support the Conservative candidate in that by-election on those and other policies? Is it not a fact that Conservative candidates now choose what party policies they support à la carte and Tory Ministers now choose which Conservative candidates to support à la carte?

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman finds the Government's economic achievements in Northern Ireland interesting. They are, indeed, interesting. Northern Ireland's economy has outpaced the rest of the United Kingdom during the past five years, and the Department of Economic Development envisages even greater achievements in ensuing years. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to refer to some remarks in a gossip column in a newspaper. I have not been consulted about that gossip column. I certainly have no comment to make on it, and I have no comment to make now, either.

What decisions have been made so far about the European Union special fund, and to what projects will that money go? What percentage of the money will be allocated to each programme? Will the money that is allocated internally to Northern Ireland be spent in Northern Ireland on projects decided by the people of Northern Ireland, or will Dublin's voice be heeded? Will Dublin have a say in how that money is spent, although it has its own percentage of money for its own internal affairs?

I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman the precise information that he seeks because not all the matters have yet been decided. It will be welcome if there is additional funding available for the people of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole, and in particular the cross-border areas which have important commercial interactions with the Northern Ireland economy. In due course, my Department will make known the precise details of the funding arrangements, but I can say to the hon. Gentleman that that part of the funding which relates to Northern Ireland will be decided by the proper authorities in Northern Ireland.

Since the MacBride principles involve positive discrimination and are also contrary to fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland, and since the Government have always campaigned against the MacBride principles, can the Minister assure the people of Northern Ireland that the Government and their agencies, such as the Industrial Development Board, will give no grants whatsoever to any American firm that operates the MacBride principles against the existing legislation in Northern Ireland?

I can understand why the hon. Gentleman couches his question in such a way. Even as we discuss these matters this afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend is at work in Washington at the investment conference, putting forward the case for investment in Northern Ireland and emphasising the fairness of our employment practices and the opportunities for employing a well-educated and proficient work force in Northern Ireland. We shall adhere to our previously published policies and objectives about the MacBride principles. I am sure that my noble Friend will take into account his own strictures on the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the peace process should encourage substantial inward investment in Northern Ireland, we could handicap that if we adopted restrictions on industry, such as a national minimum wage or the social chapter, as suggested by the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that such practices would greatly discourage investment in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland in particular and would lose us jobs, which the people of Northern Ireland seek. He is right once again to draw the attention of the House to such a disastrous policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance he gives teachers on methods of teaching; and if he will make a statement. [24622]

It is the responsibility of the education and library boards to provide the necessary support for schools and in-service training for teachers to enable them to delivery the school curriculum. The Government give no direct guidance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pressure over the years from socialist education idealogues for mixed ability teaching and of its damaging results? I certainly never practised it here and would not do so anywhere else. Will he advise teachers in Northern Ireland and everywhere else that such teaching methods would be disastrous and that sound learning comes only from sound discipline, which must be achieved?

I hear what my hon. Friend says and have some sympathy with his comments. I do not have his professional background, so I would not presume to comment in a more professional way. We give no direct guidance to teachers as such.

As a product of the Northern Ireland education system, I have to agree. On teaching methods in integrated schools, which are obviously excellent, can the Minister give the House any news on further progress in making the special unit on Rathlin island an integrated school?

I can only repeat what I have told the hon. Lady on another occasion. Any proposal for integrated education is considered by my Department according to strict criteria, to ensure that such schools have a chance of being viable and of succeeding. The criteria are carefully laid out and proposals are made to me. When the criteria are met, unless there are specific reasons, we normally support the proposals. When they are not met, I have had, on occasion, to turn them down.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of inward investment has been attracted to Northern Ireland for the latest year for which figures are available. [24623]

During 1994–95, the Industrial Development Board secured 10 inward investment projects, with an employment potential of nearly 2,000 jobs and planned investments of £130 million.

I welcome the Washington conference on investment in Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we have some particularly good news—between April and August last year 39 potential investors visited Northern Ireland, whereas 96 such investors visited Northern Ireland between September and January this year? Will my hon. Friend confirm that those figures would be further enhanced if we could get the decommissioning of arms by the IRA, and that the message to Sinn Fein, the IRA and the people of Northern Ireland is simple—it is a case of guns out and jobs in?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was the message that came through very clearly from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last night in Washington. It is a point that we must continue to make because, although the figures to which my hon. Friend rightly alluded are very encouraging, there is no doubt that investment and prosperity in Northern Ireland will depend not only on a cessation of violence but on the confidence that peace will last and, indeed, on the political settlement which I hope will create political stability following on that.

The Minister will be aware of my strong support for overseas firms coming into my constituency, although I am very concerned at the extra financial burden placed on those firms by the fair employment legislation. Would the Minister join me to help investigate the unofficial embargo that has been placed by a Government department on a certain product produced in a factory in my constituency?

As the hon. Member knows, that is not one of the departments for which I have responsibility in Northern Ireland, although I answer for it in the House. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me giving details, I shall pass them on to my noble Friend Lady Denton and she will reply to him in due course. I know that the hon. Gentleman works very hard in his constituency to ensure that inward investment is forthcoming and that, in the past three years, there has been some significant inward investment.

While in the United States, will the Secretary of State see Senator Jesse Helms, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is against all US aid, including aid for the International Fund for Ireland, to persuade him that this would be exactly the wrong moment to withdraw assistance to Ireland? If we can get money for the International Fund for Ireland, will the Secretary of State ensure that a good proportion of it goes into community-based initiatives so that the people of Northern Ireland can get a sense of ownership of the economy in the Province?

My right hon. and learned Friend is in Washington to promote investment into Northern Ireland because that is the purpose of the conference. Certainly, he and my noble Friend Lady Denton and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), will spend their time making sure that that message comes across clearly and strongly to all those at that conference. The purpose of the conference is, however, to attract investment. The reason for attracting private investment is that it can create jobs, which are, at the end of the day, the best underpinned of prosperity and of the standard and quality of life in Northern Ireland.

Does not my hon. Friend find it strange that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) seems to be more interested in gossip than in facts? Perhaps he is in a hurry to get back to the Chelsea flower show. Will my hon. Friend explain to Opposition Members that it is the social chapter, the minimum wage and state control that affect inward investment and that the reason why British firms have been so successful in attracting inward investment is exactly the absence of those things?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Government have taken a firm view on the social chapter. However, in Northern Ireland there has been, as my hon. Friend knows, a particular disadvantage, and that has been the troubled situation that has existed for 25 years. We are now trying to establish peace not only in the short term but in the long term because that will bring even more badly needed jobs to Northern Ireland. As for gossip and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), one of the occupations of the House in the 20 years in which I have been here, on and off, has always been to indulge, in certain respects, in gossip.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in taking the peace process forward in his talks with representatives of Sinn Fein. [24624]

I met representatives of Sinn Fein at meetings in exploratory dialogue on 10 May and yesterday. At the first meeting, we explored the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and we agreed to discuss it at a future meeting on the basis of a detailed paper tabled by the Government at that time.

Now that the Minister has met representatives of Sinn Fein, does he believe that Gerry Adams and the Sinn Fein leadership have the authority and the influence to insist that all IRA brigades decommission their arms and explosives? If not, does he believe that the Government are pressing Sinn Fein to do something on which it cannot necessarily deliver?

Sinn Fein has agreed that it was its influence that created the situation that led to the cessation of violence on 31 August last year. I understand, in talking to Sinn Fein, that it has admitted that it has an influence over the question of decommissioning as well. What I am doing—it is absolutely clear—is making it abundantly clear to Sinn Fein that, if it wishes to move from exploratory dialogue to substantive dialogue, not just words but actions in terms of decommissioning will be required. I know that Sinn Fein has taken careful note of what I have said and I am sure that we shall return to the matter again at future meetings.

Given that the IRA has halted only one aspect of terrorism, that it has actually increased other criminal activities, including murder, recently and that it has continued the very worrying feature of targeting police families and public figures, do Ministers not now realise that they have the backing of the entire community for demanding that the IRA ends its terrorism and that it sets about deactivating its hideous terrorist apparatus for good?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he says because it is important that we realise what our objectives are. Our objectives are to take violence, intimidation and terrorism out of the situation in Northern Ireland. What we are doing is making it clear to those who say to us that they wish to become part of the political process that it is no part of a democratic party to condone the use of violence for political purposes. It is no part of a democratic party to condone the use of violence for intimidatory purposes and it is no part of a democratic party to have associations with fully armed and potentially terrorist organisations. We have made it clear that, if this process is to move forward with the participation of Sinn Fein and, indeed, of the loyalist paramilitary representatives, we have to see those problems resolved.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be widespread support throughout the House both for what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said and for what he said in reply? Will he confirm that, for years, the House has expected elected councillors from constitutional parties to sit in the same chamber as Sinn Fein and that the key point that needs to be made to Sinn Fein is that, whereas talking with Ministers is not frightfully complicated, the most important issue is creating the conditions in which other parties are willing to sit down with Sinn Fein to discuss the future of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the basis for exploratory dialogue was threefold from the start. One part of it was the consequences of the cessation of violence, which included aspects such as the decommissioning of arms. Another was the bringing of Sinn Fein back into the full democratic process within Northern Ireland, in terms not just of electing councillors but of the work that those councillors do. The third was finding the basis for Sinn Fein to become involved in the political discussions and the constitutional discussions on the future of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend is right to say that if Sinn Fein wishes to achieve that status, it must do so on the basis that all other parties do, which is that they are armed with their electoral mandates and with nothing else.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to facilitate tourism in the Banbridge district. [24626]

The Northern Ireland tourist board is taking action in conjunction with the local industry on a number of fronts, particularly marketing, quality and accommodation, to facilitate the development of tourism across all parts of Northern Ireland, including Banbridge.

Does the Minister accept that the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in rural areas, by conversion or new build, is a desirable objective but that it is being frustrated by an over-rigid approach by planning authorities? Does he accept that the people of Banbridge would be delighted if there were major hotel development in the town but that they will be extremely angry with the Government if it turns out that the true reason for the mooted closure of Banbridge hospital is to sell it off for such development?

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an informed and dedicated interest in the commercial interests of his constituents, not least in the promotion and development of tourism. The provision of quality accommodation has been identified by the Northern Ireland tourist board as an important development for Northern Ireland and the board may be able to provide some form of assistance. I have no knowledge of what the hon. Gentleman suggests in respect of the national health service but if my hon. Friend who is responsible for health knows about that point I am sure that he will communicate with the hon. Gentleman. Planning permission for bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a matter for the divisional planning officer, but I should hope that such decisions would be based on the economic needs as well as the environmental interests of the locality.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners in Northern Ireland gaols are classified as members of (a) nationalist terrorist organisations and in each case which one and (b) loyalist terrorist organizations and in each case which one. [24627]

The terrorist affiliation of prisoners is recorded for prison management purposes, not for classification. Approximately 35 per cent. of sentenced prisoners are republican, 23 per cent. are loyalist, and 42 per cent. are not affiliated or are untraced.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the report by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders concerning the early release of prisoners? Will it form a topic for discussion during his talks with Northern Irish parties?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reference to the report and work of NIACRO, which I regard extremely highly. I have regular opportunities to meet representatives of NIACRO and I listen to their points of view and objectives carefully. It is a forward-thinking, highly responsible organization on which I place much credit. Its observations weigh in my mind when I consider those important and complicated matters and in the course of discussion with others, too.

When are the cases of prisoners Fisher and Wright likely to be reviewed, and when is next month's review of the sentence of Private Lee Clegg likely to be completed?

I cannot comment on the cases of the two offenders to whom my hon. Friend referred, other than to say that they are part of the normal process and procedure for the Prison Service in Northern Ireland and will be subject to those procedures in precisely the same way as any other prisoners. The life sentence review board will begin to review Private Lee Clegg's case in June and a report will come to my notice in due course.

When will the statement of 16 March be implemented to allow financially assisted visits for low-income families of prisoners?

The hon. Gentleman takes a detailed and considered interest in those matters. The Northern Ireland Prison Service is considering a number of proposals to enhance the regime of prisons in Northern Ireland and that is certainly one of them. The Prison Service must take into account the serious cost implications as it balances the different economic needs of the management of prisons.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress he has made to date in bringing about the disarming of republican terrorist organisations. [24628]

Substantial progress on decommissioning paramilitary weapons, and on other issues, is needed if Sinn Fein is to enter normal political life in Northern Ireland. We will continue to pursue this matter vigorously during exploratory dialogue. The RUC and Garda will also continue to seek out all illegal terrorist weapons, as recent successes in Northern Ireland and the Republic amply demonstrate.

Although I fully support the peace initiative, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are Members who deeply regret the meeting that took place between the Secretary of State and Gerry Adams yesterday in Washington, because it gives credibility to Mr. Adams and his cause, which is totally unjustified? Does he accept that if the Government are to retain the confidence of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, who support the Union, including the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland, they must make no further concessions to republican terrorism and we must have a substantial decommissioning of IRA weapons?

I fully understand why my hon. Friend views with distaste the encounter between my right hon. and learned Friend and the president of Sinn Fein. Perhaps he will be pleased to know that that encounter enabled my right hon. and learned Friend to make clear to the president of Sinn Fein that if Sinn Fein is to be a normal political party, it must understand the importance of the decommissioning process and it must agree, through the exploratory talks mechanism that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is conducting, with the modalities of decommissioning if it is to make progress.

Is it not somewhat peculiar that the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) answered that question instead of the hon. Member for Devizes, who has responsibility, apparently, for bringing the disarmament process to a conclusion? Has not the hon. Member for Devizes been somewhat coy about his on-going relationship with Sinn Fein-IRA? Is it not a fact that although every demand by Sinn Fein-IRA as to who they will meet and when they will meet them has been met so far, not a single solitary gun has been produced, and nor have we moved to discuss in detail the modalities and methods for disarmament? Is it true that progress on that issue has been made with loyalist paramilitary organisations? Is not the dalliance of the hon. Member for Devizes with Sinn Fein-IRA becoming a sordid little affair?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no difference in any way between my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and me on the issue of decommissioning. We stand shoulder to shoulder in our determination to see that process carried forward. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the exploratory talks that my hon. Friend has been holding with various organisations, down but a single track, have shown some to be swifter in their journey than others. The fact remains that, even as we talk of such matters, in Washington my right hon. and learned Friend is urging the decommissioning process, because if investors are to invest in Northern Ireland with confidence, they, like other people, cannot look into the minds of terrorists and their political associates, who speak about permanence of peace, until they look to see the evidence of a standing down of terrorist gangs. When that happens, people will know that decommissioning has indeed been achieved.

What plans have the Government to involve either other countries or other organisations in the process of removing and destroying arms, ammunition and explosives that may be seized in due course?

It remains to be seen precisely what procedures are necessary to achieve the successful and actual decommissioning of the substantial amounts of weapons and explosives that are held by the Provisional IRA and others. It is always possible that contributions to the process can be made by other people, although firmly within the control and the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May. [24650]

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

Has the Prime Minister any understanding of the deep anger that will be felt in the country at the way in which the directors of the privatised National Grid have used tax avoidance measures to ensure that their wives will have hundreds of thousands of bonus shares? What message does that send to pensioners in my constituency who are struggling to make ends meet?

The hon. Lady may not be wholly aware of what has happened. I have made inquiries to clarify the position.

I am sure that the Prime Minister has heard of the result of yesterday's meeting in America between his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the leader of IRA-Sinn Fein. I am sure that he has noted what the leader of IRA-Sinn Fein said: that there can be no progress towards decommissioning until there is complete demilitarisation of everyone—that is, the surrender of arms by Army, police and those who have guns to protect themselves—and that all prisoners must be released. Are the Government prepared to negotiate with the leader of Sinn Fein on those terms?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend met the leader of Sinn Fein yesterday to make a point that was very important for both the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others in Northern Ireland: that the best contribution that Sinn Fein could make to the conference and to Northern Ireland's prosperity would be to promote peace, and therefore to secure the decommissioning of the IRA's arms and explosives. That remains the Government's position.

To return to National Grid, is the Prime Minister aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They wanted us to answer the point and now they do not want us to raise it. Is the Prime Minister aware that the issue is not independent taxation between men and women, but remuneration being paid by way of share options so as to avoid income tax? That is what is actually happening in this case. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that that abuse is wrong and is he prepared to put a stop to it?

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I favour employee share options and I favour executive share options. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does too, because that is a direct quote from his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. There is no dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and I or between the two major parties about the desirability of share options.

No, that is not the policy. The only reason why the directors transfer shares to their spouses is that the remuneration is paid by way of share options in order to avoid income tax. That is why they do it. That is the issue: it is not whether share options are wrong or right, it is whether they are taxed as income or as capital gains. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that, where remuneration is effectively given by way of share options to avoid income tax and only pay capital gains tax, he will put a stop to it?

Capital gains are taxed at the marginal rate when the capital gain is realised. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that he does not wish husbands to pass those rights on to their wives. The transfer of property between husbands and wives—be it shares, property or capital—is tax free.

Perhaps the Prime Minister does not realise that the National Grid has admitted that it used share options to avoid paying income tax. Why does not the Prime Minister stop defending the greed of a privileged few and stand up for the vast majority of decent British people?

The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether he is really in favour of share options. The glaring divide between the shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Labour party becomes more apparent day by day. They may sit close together, but clearly they never speak.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's announcement of further measures to target taxpayers' money on making state schools more effective and improving standards? Will he confirm that the Government's objective is to ensure that all parents are entitled to a good-quality, high-standard state education for their children, not only if they happen to live a couple of boroughs away from a convenient grant-maintained school?

I can certainly confirm that point. I believe that the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be widely welcomed up and down the country.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the deadlines in Sarajevo represent a critical moment for the authority of the United Nations and its commanders in Bosnia? Will he ensure that, if our commanders on the ground in Bosnia conclude that decisive action must be taken, they will receive the full and unswerving backing of not only the Government but the United Nations in New York?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of the present situation. I am happy to tell him that we have already given that assurance to our commanders on the ground. We made that clear in New York last night and they are aware of our position. The United Nations has also reiterated its full support—by that I mean our commanders will have support for whatever action they may consider necessary in the light of the events of the past day or so.

To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Southfleet, Kent. [24651]

I have no current plans to do so.

What advice would the Prime Minister give the leadership of the trade union, Unison, which may be about to inflict a vicious national strike on the British people? The last time Unison inflicted a strike on the British people—

What has this to do with Kent?

People are concerned about it in Southfleet.

I believe that any form of industrial action in the health service would be bound to harm patients. It is difficult to see how it could do anything else. My hon. Friend has provided a graphic reminder of what happened on a previous occasion. I am perfectly certain that no professional nurse would wish to pursue such action, and I very much hope that that will be the overwhelming view. I hope that the few people involved will set aside the language of trade union confrontation, look at the fair offer that has been made to them by the vast majority of NHS trusts up and down the country, accept it and put the issue behind us.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May. [24652]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

From the Government's overwhelming defeat in the local elections last month, it is clear that the electorate totally rejected their local government policies. In particular, people rejected the Government notion that Labour authorities are high taxing and high spending. Will the Government now abandon plans to cap the expenditure of local authorities this year?

I have very great doubts about whether people have abandoned the notion that Labour means high taxes, both nationally and locally. If one looks band for band at local taxation last year, one finds that in band C, for example—I take the figures from memory, but I think that they are right—Labour councils taxed about £160 more than Conservative councils. That point will be understood increasingly as people examine their tax bills.

In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report on Islington's social services? If so, he will have found that the Labour party in Islington put political correctness above the needs of the vulnerable and of the children in its care, and above common sense. Does he agree that, in the same way, the Labour party in general puts women-only shortlists and other forms of positive discrimination and political correctness above the interests of the nation—

Order. What other parties do is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I have told the House time and time again that Ministers at the Dispatch Box answer for their policies, not for what other people do. Perhaps the Prime Minister can give some answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I hope that the House will remember in future that Ministers are to be questioned about their responsibilities, not about anything else.

The substantive part of the question followed on nicely from the question asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) a moment ago. Like everyone in the House—I would hope—I read the reports about what apparently happened in Islington council and found them extremely disturbing. They show what happens when political correctness runs riot. I believe that tolerance, in that environment, becomes excess. It causes untold suffering for those in need of help. This was a sad example of what happens when the Labour party is in power. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central neglected to mention the activities that went on in Islington, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to my attention.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May. [24653]

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

Does the Prime Minister recall his prediction at the 1991 Conservative party conference that Labour would introduce eight new taxes if it took office? How does that claim look now in the light of the 20 new taxes that he and the Government have introduced?

Perhaps the hon. Lady should glance at the list of new taxes to which Opposition Front Benchers have committed themselves if they come to government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Opposition Members are right: most of the taxes that they propose are rubbish. Labour is now and always has been the party of high taxation at national and local levels, and while the Opposition continue to commit themselves to more spending on every occasion, they always will be the party of high taxation.