To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effects of BSE on the Northern Ireland economy. [35380]

The BSE crisis has had a devastating effect in Northern Ireland because of the vital role that the beef industry plays in the overall economy of the Province. Slaughterings are now at 61 per cent. of pre-crisis levels and there have been more than 900 full-time and 260 part-time lay-offs or redundancies in the beef and ancillary sectors. In order to ensure that we still have an industry when the unjustified ban is lifted, we have provided very significant aid packages to farmers, the slaughtering industry and the renderers.

The Secretary of State has detailed the devastating effect that BSE is having on the economy of Northern Ireland. What further steps does he intend to take to ensure that Northern Ireland very soon becomes a BSE-free area, so that the export of beef to the continent and elsewhere can resume? Will he give particular attention to the problems of transferring flagging from holdings to herds so that the difficulties that farmers experience whenever the cattle are changed disappear? Will he also give particular attention to the dreadful problems that the suckler herd men will face two or three months down the road?

I think that the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question lies in very scrupulous and particular monitoring of the various restrictions that are in place. I will naturally draw the matter of transferring flagging from holdings to herds to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Flagging is a safeguard and not a stigma, and all of us must do our best to see that it is viewed as such. We shall attend to all those who have an interest in the suckler cow premium when the decisions fall to be taken. The premium is of considerable importance to a wide range of interests in Northern Ireland.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that one of the possible results of the accelerated cull programme is that the United Kingdom would need to import cattle from other countries to replace those that have been culled, and in doing so might inadvertently import cattle with a higher risk of being BSE infected than those they replace? What programme do the Government have to ensure that that does not happen, as I fear that the cure may be more severe than the complaint?

I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I deal with that question solely in relation to Northern Ireland, where I am happy to say that only about 2,000 beasts are likely to be the subject of the additional cull. If there is any substance in what my hon. Friend foresees as a possibility, it is therefore not likely to be material in Northern Ireland. I shall, however, draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture to the point that my hon. Friend has made.

The Secretary of State will be aware that, in view of the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, there are difficulties with breeders of young bulls and suckler herds. I understand that 850 million ecu is available from the European Union to spend on beef and the beef industry throughout the Union, of which the United Kingdom's share is about £34 million. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that Northern Ireland farmers, breeders and the beef industry will be able to decide how their share of that money is spent in view of the particular problems?

A noteworthy feature of agriculture in Northern Ireland is the very close and well informed relationship between it and the Agriculture Department. That close relationship is of great value to the industry and to the Government, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion will benefit from it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on education and library boards in Northern Ireland. [35382]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on 25 June that he proposes to bring legislation before the House which would reduce the number of education and library boards from five to three and change the membership of the three new boards to increase the proportion of district councillors on boards from 40 per cent. to 48 per cent.

Is it not odd for the Government to claim that they are making administrative savings by reducing the number of ELBs at the same time as they are putting aside about £8.3 million for the administration of the nursery voucher scheme and are about to create a new bureaucracy with the incorporation of Northern Ireland further education colleges? Is it not outrageous that a dying Administration are trying at this late stage to push through three items which would be far better put to the people of Northern Ireland at a general election?

I may be retiring, but I am not dying—unless the hon. Gentleman knows something that I do not. The important thing about the proposal is that it is not primarily a cost-cutting exercise, but an exercise in greater efficiency and in directing resources to the classroom. The expected savings from my right hon. Friend's proposal amount to some £2 million, or the equivalent of 90 extra teachers. Parents and children in Northern Ireland will welcome that.

Will the Secretary of State look again at early-day motion 1074, which expresses the objections of all parties in Northern Ireland to the change? Are not the estimates referred to just guesstimates? Shall we really get savings, as a new headquarters may be required? Does he accept that although the proportion of local councillors has increased, the numbers have been reduced?

The location of the new headquarters is very much a matter for consultation, and that remains to be decided. There has been a diligent process of consultation on the separate phases of change. In March 1992, we announced the review and invited the submission of views. From February to June 1993, the document "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland" was produced, which set out the broad options. From April to June 1995, "Proposals for Change" was published, suggesting the four-board model. Objections to that were received, and discussions with local parties took place from October 1995 to January 1996. The system is seriously over-administered and its application to Belfast is inappropriate, as the Greater Belfast area is served by three education and library boards. We must have regard to the need for change in a system that has been unchanged for 20 years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [35383]

We have taken a number of steps to reintroduce security measures since the end of the PIRA ceasefire and as a result of the widespread disorder that we have witnessed in recent days. For instance, we recalled two relocated battalions soon after the end of the ceasefire, but two further battalions will be deployed over the next few days. Other precautionary action has been taken. We are also talking to the Irish Government about further co-operation on security. We are absolutely determined that Northern Ireland should not slip into the abyss of sectarian violence and we shall do everything in our power to protect the hard won gains of the last 22 months.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the consistent inability of the Chief Constable to consult and liaise at both a professional and a political level has, more than anything else, led to the futile impasse at Drumcree? Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that my party has put proposals on the table which address the long-term interests of both traditions, in terms of parades, and will he assure us that never again will the interests of decent people from either tradition be sacrificed to the machinations of IRA-Sinn Fein activists such as Brendan McKenna?

I believe that I must deal with questions of this character at this moment in a considered and guarded way, as I hope will all right hon. and hon. Members. I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The question of the march at Portadown and Drumcree has been the subject of more sustained consultation over the past year than any similar event. I reject criticism of the Chief Constable for the decision that he took originally or, in the light of a changing balance of circumstances, for the decision that he has taken today. I am happy to deal further with that aspect in answer to further questions. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman's party has put forward constructive proposals, which have been valuable.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the events of the past few days have shown once again that communication and dialogue are infinitely preferable to confrontation and hostility, not least in the context of the seasonal marches? Will he confirm that it is his policy to strive to re-create the conditions in which meaningful negotiations can take place between those who are genuinely committed to non-violence and democracy?

I warmly agree with my hon. Friend, and I noted with admiration what he said yesterday about the balance that has to be struck. As the Church leaders have said today, a resolution has to be found, not just for the short-term problems at Drumcree, but for the long-term issue of how the deeply rooted traditions of marches can better be handled in future, perhaps by reference to agreed criteria and guidelines. The Government will consider that closely in the next few days.

Given the Secretary of State's correct support and the Prime Minister's correct support for the decision of the Chief Constable on Sunday about the march at Drumcree, and given the events of the past four days—widespread intimidation, attacks on people's homes, businesses and churches, and blockages of airports, harbours, towns and roads—how can the Secretary of State explain today's disgraceful decision to surrender to the people who have been engaged in such activities over the past four days? Can he tell me whether he himself or the Government had any role in that surrender and change of opinion?

First, I reject the notion of surrender. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman will perhaps have heard from what the Chief Constable has said publicly this afternoon, no political pressure of any kind was put on the Chief Constable which might have led to his decision today—any more than there was for the decision, which the hon. Gentleman has just applauded, on 6 July. Those are operational matters for the Chief Constable and must remain so.

In considering the security situation, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what progress has been made in finding the bombers who perpetrated the horrendous events in Manchester? Whatever other circumstances may be crucial in achieving security and peace in the long term in Northern Ireland, does he agree that the finding, trying, convicting and punishing of those who have carried out such horrendous attacks on both sides of the Irish channel and both sides of the Irish border must play an important part?

I warmly agree with my hon. Friend. Very intensive investigations, and not unfruitful ones, are taking place and will continue, I am glad to say, in relation to those horrifying and deeply wicked crimes. It is essential that people should be brought to justice who seek to advance their political objectives by means of hideous crimes.

Would the Secretary of State care to comment on whether he believes that those of us who are elected to this House, and particularly those people who lead parties in this House, should have regard to the fact that one of Her Majesty's loyal chief constables made a decision purely on operational, policing matters four days ago? Will he join me in reinforcing the message to a particular individual who leads a party that he should have more regard for the Chief Constable's decision than he has had in the past?

I began by imposing upon myself a certain measure of restraint this afternoon. It is important that no one today is in the business of pointing fingers or allocating blame or responsibility. It is absolutely right, as the hon. Gentleman said, that that original decision was taken on operational grounds. We did not hear anything at that time about the Chief Constable's having surrendered to mob rule—at least, I did not hear it myself. Today, that decision has been lifted, again on purely operational grounds. We all ought to recognise the enormously difficult and very lonely role that the Chief Constable has to play, as well as the enormously demanding role that the Royal Ulster Constabulary that he leads with great distinction has played in recent events.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the consistent lesson of the troubles has been that, if efforts to reconcile the minority to the democratic institutions of the British state and the authority of the Crown are taken too far, the majority is alienated? Is not that alienation an even greater danger, inasmuch as the people who are alienated are those who are basically loyal and wish to uphold the state and the rule of law?

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in our affairs for a long time, that alienation is an ever-present danger. Of course I agree that, almost by definition, taking anything too far is dangerous. We have to encourage parity of esteem and a balancing of the perfectly proper hopes, aspirations and fears of one side of the community against those of its counterparts. That is what we try to do.

While I recognise the invidious position of the Chief Constable, does the Secretary of State nevertheless agree that the combination of confrontation and subsequent capitulation is bound to send the wrong signals to the minority community in Northern Ireland, because it undermines respect for the law and the law enforcement agencies? Does he also agree that, in this day and age, for anyone to parade and march through other people's communities is deliberately inflammatory and triumphalistic, stirs up old hatreds and should have no place in a civilised age?

On the first part of the question, I do not think that the language of capitulation is consistent with the nature of the decision that the Chief Constable has to take. As I have tried to describe, it is a question of balancing risk. The House, by legislating as it has, has recognised that there is always a balance of risk to be made. In those circumstances, to describe it as capitulation today might just as well, I suppose, have led the hon. Gentleman to speak of capitulation on 6 July. It is inappropriate language. It is a striking of a balance in the light of changing circumstances.

I fully agree with the Secretary of State that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army are put in an impossible situation, year after year, because of marches and parades. Does he share our support for the work that they have done in the past week in impossible circumstances? Will he further join me in supporting those residents of the Garvaghy road and some in the Orange Order who want to negotiate and not force their way to the future? Surely we must now establish an independent commission, supported by all the democratic parties in the House, to find a way to allow peaceful parades which do not seek to intimidate and threaten. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now set up that commission?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to the RUC and the military, which is well deserved. Equally, I share his tribute to those who have tried, in his striking phrase, to negotiate and not force their way into the future. That has to be the way forward for that uniquely divided community and I am quite certain that it is within their power.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process. [35384]

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent developments in the Northern Ireland peace process. [35388]

Since 12 June, each of the participating political parties has affirmed total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence. With the British and Irish Governments, they have been conferring on important procedural issues under the impartial chairmanship of Senator George Mitchell, supported by General de Chastelain and Prime Minister Holkeri.

Arising from present events, is the Secretary of State aware that, although most people in Britain understand the role of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and have no desire to see that association come to an end, the same people find it almost impossible to believe that, year after year, there should be such deeply sectarian marches and demonstrations, which serve no purpose whatever? Bearing in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's previous experience, is it not the case that the police in the rest of the United Kingdom would not allow such marches, which would create community, racial and religious tensions? I hope that that point will be borne in mind.

It is worth remembering that last year there were 3,000 marches in Northern Ireland, of which no more than 13 gave rise to any disorder. The lesson there is surely that, where marches can be negotiated, brokered and discussed, a balance is achieved between two opposing interests—the right to march and the right not to feel intimidated or oppressed. The record is 3,000 to 13, and I believe that we can do a lot better.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all the work that he has done, and will do in his remaining period as Secretary of State, and particularly for his current attempts to recover the momentum of the peace process. We wish him well.

I am naturally grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question. I hope to go on doing my job for as long as I can—and I hope that someone is listening.

I will ignore the contemptible question from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and concentrate on the future. As we look ahead to the resumption of all-party talks, does the Secretary of State recognise the contribution that the Ulster Unionist party has made to their success so far? Does he agree that the mere resumption of a ceasefire is not sufficient passport for Sinn Fein-IRA to enter the multi-party talks, and that the main issue which lies ahead is the decommissioning of illegal firearms? Must there not be agreement on the process for that, and honouring of decommissioning as well?

I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman and his party are looking forward to the resumption of the all-party talks, and that they will be there. That is extremely important.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that peace in a democracy requires tolerance and understanding of the convictions of others? It comes ill from those who support marches by trade unions and other pressure groups to suggest that it is wrong for others to march.

My hon. Friend points to the need for consistency and balance and, above all, for an even-handed approach in the exercise of such powers as the forces of law and order and the Chief Constable of the RUC have in ensuring that the rights of all people, although they may conflict with other rights, are equally and equitably addressed, enforced and protected.

Is there not something very sad about the Secretary of State in the present circumstances coming to the Dispatch Box and hiding behind the Chief Constable, who has been jettisoned, and behind Church leaders who tried their best to resolve a problem? This is a Government problem and the result rests with the Government. Does the Secretary of State accept that those marches had nothing to do with who marched up what road but were about whose writ runs in Northern Ireland? His Government were asked that question and they failed.

Order. So many Members on both sides want to ask questions that it is totally unfair to make speeches and ask long questions. The hon. Gentleman may put one final question to the Secretary of State.

How can anyone negotiate with confidence with a Government who cannot keep their word?

I am genuinely saddened by the hon. Gentleman's questions, because I have a deep respect for him, for his courage and for his integrity. I ask him to consider this. He spoke of my hiding behind the Chief Constable, by which I suppose he means that the Chief Constable is not telling the truth when he says that there was no political pressure. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would have preferred the decision of 6 July to be taken by the Chief Constable or by a political Minister.

Who was it changed by?

It was changed by the Chief Constable, as the Chief Constable himself has said. It does not do the hon. Gentleman or anybody else any good unjustifiably to feed suspicions that are apparent to all by saying things for which he has no evidence but which he believes will feed a particular suspicion if he articulates them. To say that I have broken faith with the Chief Constable is no more true than to say that the Chief Constable was leaned upon either today or on 6 July.

Are there not marches every weekend, in this capital city and in many other cities in the world, which some people find offensive? Is it not an inalienable right in any civilised free society to demonstrate peacefully, whether that involves marching or anything else?

Yes; my hon. Friend is right. It is an inalienable right, but it cannot be exercised without qualification and that qualification is imposed by a democratic Parliament. That is what has happened here.

I join others in thanking the RUC and its chief for their courage and professionalism over the past four days. I also thank the residents of the Garvaghy road, members of the Orange and those in the House who have sought peaceful mediation. Does the Secretary of State agree that the situation demands political leadership and initiative? One accepts that the Chief Constable is there in terms of public order, but the situation needs public, political leadership.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her tribute to the police and to the Army. As to the "independent eye" being cast on the question of how the right to march may best be regulated, I have in mind a general review that will make recommendations. The earlier suggestion included limiting that to some body that would exercise jurisdiction, and there are serious difficulties about that in terms of ministerial responsibility and the Chief Constable's responsibility. I have already dealt with the last part of her question. It is important that we do not, any of us, behave or speak in a way that heightens tension at this time.

As somebody who was brought up as a Roman Catholic, and by an Irish Roman Catholic at that, I find it both patronising and insulting that anyone would suggest that, simply because one is a Roman Catholic, one would want to stop people of a different tradition demonstrating peacefully. That is an extraordinary remark for any hon. Member to make, and it should never have been made.

I am afraid that I am not aware that anyone has made it but, if it had been made, I would warmly agree with my hon. Friend's castigation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to expand the rail network in Northern Ireland. [35385]

There are no plans to expand the rail network in Northern Ireland.

Why does not the Minister give the go-ahead to the Bleach Green line, which he knows will receive 75 per cent. funding from the European Union, leaving us to pay only £2 million? Does he not recognise a good investment when he sees it?

The line is used only for servicing purposes and it is not, as the hon. Gentleman knows, up to passenger standard. It would not be possible to meet the original target date for completion, but the commitment to reinstate the line for passenger traffic still stands. We are looking at a cost of £8 million at 1992 prices. We hope to start next year, and it will take 18 months to complete the project.

Will the Minister also confirm that the scope for public investment in the rail system and in Northern Ireland generally is reduced by every pound that must be redirected to security and policing costs, and that all people whose actions serve to increase those costs are sharply decreasing the chances of building the infrastructure that is needed to create the long-term prosperity that is essential to everyone?

The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. I made it myself only the other day in Newry with regard to the health service, in terms of the total money in the block that we have to spend. If we have to spend £1 million a day on security measures, that is £1 million a day that we will not have available for projects of the sort that he has described.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy toward the paying of witnesses in criminal trials. [35386]

It is not Government policy to pay witnesses to give evidence in criminal trials.

Were any of the witnesses at the trial of Mr. Colin Duffy in the pay of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? The Minister will recall that Mr. Duffy was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on the basis of some extremely dubious identification evidence, and that one of the anonymous witnesses who gave evidence against him was a Mr. Lindsay Robb, in whom the judge expressed total confidence as to his uprightness and integrity, and who turned out to be an Ulster Volunteer Force gun runner. When does the Minister think that Mr. Duffy's conviction will be referred back to the Court of Appeal so that it can be quashed?

No one is in the pay of the RUC. No one is paid to be a witness before the courts. I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly the case of Duffy, which I understand is in the process of appeal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many British soldiers are currently imprisoned convicted of murder for incidents which occurred when they were on active duty in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [35389]

There are two. Such cases are subject to the normal, well-established review procedures that apply to all life sentence cases in Northern Ireland. As with any life sentence case, they have been, and will continue to be, considered strictly on their individual merits and in the light of all the available information—including the comments of the judiciary which dealt with the cases before, both at the original trial and on appeal.

Can the Minister advise whether soldiers in such circumstances have been released in the past? If so, how many years did they serve in prison?

No, I cannot comment on previous cases. All I can say is that each case must be considered on its merits and in accordance with the law and the appropriate judicial procedures that apply to the individual, arising from the jurisdiction under which he was sentenced.

Does the Minister agree that no soldier, following his conviction and imprisonment for murder, should be allowed to rejoin his regiment? Should not such a soldier, having been convicted of murder, at least be discharged with ignominy in addition to being imprisoned?

I cannot agree. All cases must be dealt with on their merits. It is a matter of justice that the individual should be considered by the Army authorities in the proper way, in accordance with the circumstances of the case.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35410]

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that it is no longer the Queen's writ that runs in Northern Ireland but the Orange writ? The actions of Her Majesty's Government in the past day compare most unfavourably with the actions of Lady Thatcher who, when she sat on the Government Front Bench, saw down the Orange threat at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the framework document is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

I can answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question—the framework document is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It is generally accepted across the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have done more to bring peace to the Province, albeit that it is sadly disturbed at the moment, than Ministers in any other Administration in modern times.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35411]

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend condemn unreservedly the disruption on London Transport being caused by members of the Associated Society Locomotive of Engineers and Fireman and, now, the National Union of Rail, Marine and Transport Workers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such action is a complete misuse of industrial power, causes hardship to millions of Londoners and threatens the tourist trade? Is my right hon. Friend surprised that some hon. Members have failed to condemn that disruption, and does he agree that, for Londoners, new Labour has come to mean hard labour?

My hon. Friend raises important and urgent matters. I am wholly sympathetic with his comments about the plight of Londoners faced with that unjustifiable action. As to persons who should condemn it, I put at the top of the list the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by one of the unions concerned.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister break with tradition and give a straight answer to a simple question? Over the next 25 years, how much rent will the Ministry of Defence pay to the purchaser of the married quarters estate in return for the £1.6 billion estimated sale price?

The House will have noticed that, faced with the question that I put to him, all that the deputy leader of the Labour party could do was laugh and refuse to answer. On the specific question he put to me, what the House will want to judge is whether it should listen to his strictures or to the advice of the chiefs of staff about what is best for the military services.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister deny the press reports which state that the Government have agreed to pay far more in rent than they will receive from the sale? Is it not a scandal that the Government are keeping secret just how much taxpayers' money they have guaranteed to pay to those property speculators?

The right hon. Gentleman has no understanding of how property deals are structured. If he had, he would realise that this negotiation will lead to improved standards for members of Her Majesty's services and that the minimum guarantees are well below the occupancy levels assumed to prevail throughout that time.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister now tell the House the truth? This is a bad deal for service families and for the public. It is selling off a national asset at a knockdown price. It is a typical smash-and-grab operation by a Government of spivs.

That is exactly what the Labour party has said about every privatisation measure that we have ever introduced. Every time we do it, we hear this ranting nonsense from the Labour party. Then, when we have done it, the Labour party cannot bring itself to reverse it.

In the week in which the Father of the House has celebrated his 80th birthday and his 46 years of service to the House, will my right hon. Friend associate himself with the congratulations and good wishes of the House?

My hon. Friend has provided me with a most welcome opportunity to pay a fulsome tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has served the House and the country with great distinction for a long time. I say only one word of personal thanks, which is that I am grateful that he had the foresight to recommend my name for the Conservative candidates' list some 30 years ago.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35412]

I have been asked to reply.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that both Houses gave a spectacular welcome to President Mandela because he personifies the struggle against the apartheid regime? Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating those who supported the anti-apartheid movement throughout President Mandela's years in prison? Will he join me in hoping that President Mandela's attitude towards his former oppressors will strengthen and build the new democracy? Does he agree that President Mandela's attitude brings shame to those in this country who gave succour and support to the apartheid regime? [Interruption.]

I would have hoped that the House could have responded to the hon. Gentleman's question. We are talking about one of the political giants of our time and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to a man who, in his behaviour since leaving prison, has made one of the most remarkable political contributions that I have ever seen. To have spent that part of his life in those circumstances and to have emerged with such apparent absence of any bitterness to set about the healing of the wounds in that country with the potential that that has for not just South Africa but the whole continent of Africa, must be regarded as one of the more remarkable political achievements of our century.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35413]

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the downbeat assessment of Britain's industrial involvements of late by the voice of Labour—sadly not with us today—investment by Lucky Goldstar in Wales, Unipart in England and Lite-On in Scotland demonstrates that UK plc is in very good heart?

I hope that the entire House would want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on securing not only the largest inward investment ever to come to this country, from Lucky Goldstar of Korea, but probably one of the largest inward investments ever attracted into the European Union. It is a huge tribute to the policies of the Government, which are transforming the United Kingdom into the enterprise centre of Europe.

"I don't see much inward involvement flooding in. I see companies flooding out."

Question 5. [Interruption.]

I am happy to answer the question, if only I can get a chance to hear it in the first place.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35415]

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the Greenpeace campaign to stop industrial fishing for sand eels, which is destroying entire fishing grounds in the North sea, including Wee Bankie, near my constituency? Will he undertake to have this issue raised in forthcoming intergovernmental conference and common fisheries policy talks?

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture take the matter extremely seriously and will raise it as appropriate in any international forum.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35418]

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country has the finest civil service in the world, and that any newspaper reports to the contrary today are entirely bogus? Will he—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Will he endorse the view that the civil service has more important things to do implementing the Government's excellent policies than spending time on the wholly academic issue of a possible Labour Government in the future?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question, because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] That is perfectly true. I was aware that the question might be raised, because it had been extensively reported in The Independent as a result of the organised publication of suggestions that there had been politicisation of the civil service by a civil service union— coincidentally on the day when the Labour party is organising a Supply day debate on the subject, so I had done some research.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July. [35419]

I have been asked to reply.

On this historic day, when both Houses of Parliament had the privilege of being addressed by one of the greatest political leaders of this century, will the Deputy Prime Minister appeal to all political leaders in Northern Ireland to stretch out to each other a hand of friendship, peace and reconciliation—just as Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk did to ensure a better future for their country based on the equality of all the peoples, irrespective of race, gender or creed?

The hon. Gentleman speaks for the House. I would add only one thought, with which I am sure that he would wish to associate himself. It is that President Mandela has done all those things within the context of the rule of law.

At a time when commuters in London are being given a timely reminder of what life used to be like under Labour in a strike-ridden Britain, does my right hon. Friend recall that, even in the dark days of old Labour, there was never a suggestion that the firing of strikers should be outlawed? Does he recall that new Labour now proposes that it should be illegal to fire strikers? Does that not show that there really are new dangers in new Labour?

My hon. Friend has raised a point that concerns us all. The new Labour proposals for trade union reform envisage changes to give unions powers that they never had under earlier legislation. Beyond any shadow of doubt, new Labour represents new dangers.

With regard to the earlier reference to jobs for south Wales, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much subsidy, in all its various forms, has been paid by the Government to attract those jobs? Was not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for refusing subsidies to the pits, which he then closed a few years ago? If he had kept open those pits by paying subsidies, south Wales would not need so many jobs now.

If I remember correctly—it is some time since I looked at the figures—the subsidies to the coal industry amounted to £19 billion, as a result of which jobs were not saved: they simply disappeared under Government after Government. The transformation now, which the hon. Gentleman cannot live with, is that the mining industry has just had its first ever strike-free year.