If he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [113215]

If he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the peace process. [113219]

Following the Government's decision on 11 February to suspend the operation of the institutions so as to preserve them for restoration, I had useful discussions last week with the political parties in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government. Those will continue in the United States over the next few days. I remain convinced that there is the will and the desire to see the Good Friday agreement implemented in full. We shall continue to do all that we can to achieve that in close co-operation with the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the transformation that has occurred in Northern Ireland over the past few years is solely down to the Good Friday agreement? In many instances, the people have been ahead of the politicians in realising that. Does he accept that no politician or political party has any copyright on the agreement, and that if there is to be any revision of it, that must be done through agreement, discussion and consensus between all the people and parties involved?

The Good Friday agreement represents a potential sea-change in the fortunes of Northern Ireland. Despite all that has happened, we certainly cannot stand still. Indeed, no one can afford to opt out. We are working to implement the agreement in all its aspects; large swathes of it—human rights, equality, policing, criminal justice and other matters—will continue to be implemented. We want to see the institutions resume their operation as quickly as possible, but that must be on the basis of cross-community participation.

The Secretary of State will know that Real IRA have acquired updated RPG7 rocket launchers from the Balkans, with other weapons. Is he also aware that some of the terrorists now being released have joined Real IRA? Will he not say that enough is enough? Until we see some decommissioning, no more political or terrorist prisoners should be released.

I cannot confirm any of the information that the hon. Gentleman has given the House. Under the agreement, the continuation of early releases is linked to the maintenance of each paramilitary ceasefire. I will, of course, keep each ceasefire under regular and constant review.

Given the serious problems with the process, and given my question to the Secretary of State last month in which I urged the leader of the Ulster Unionist party to relax his 12 February deadline, will my right hon. Friend begin negotiations from the standpoint of having 22 May as the beginning of the decommissioning process rather than its end?

I can certainly say firmly that no single party can unilaterally change what is in the agreement. Realistically, the prospects for achieving complete decommissioning by 22 May are poor. However, there are two extreme views as to the consequences if it is not achieved. Mr. Adams seems to be suggesting that we just forget about decommissioning. Others say that it must mean the end of the agreement altogether. Both views are wrong. Decommissioning will not go away; it remains an essential part of the peace process and of the Good Friday agreement. However, the only way to achieve decommissioning is through the full implementation of the agreement; that is what we shall continue to work on.

Has the Secretary of State seen this morning's press reports that Mr. Gerry Adams has said that there will be no political progress whatever in Washington this week, and that there will be no decommissioning of illegal armaments by 22 May this year, as required in the Belfast agreement? Accordingly, if that is correct, will the Assembly remain in suspension after 22 May? What will happen?

No; I hope very much that the Assembly, the Executive and all the institutions will be reactivated long in advance of 22 May. It is imperative that that be achieved, so that the issue of decommissioning, in conjunction with that reactivation, can be settled one way or another to everyone's satisfaction. Only in that way shall we be able to accommodate the deadline of 22 May—in the context of functioning institutions. Politics that works in Northern Ireland is the essential condition for progress.

What is the Secretary of State's view of the Alliance party's six-point plan to break the deadlock in the peace process? It seems to me that some of the ideas are original and could be helpful.

There is a lot of interest in those ideas. I had the opportunity to discuss the six-point plan with an Alliance party delegation who came to see me last week. The plan is positive and constructive, and it makes a good contribution to the current consultation of all parties. I have not heard what the other pro-agreement parties' view of the Alliance proposals is, but I shall look closely at any such measures that are able to generate cross-party confidence and support.

All over the world Irish people and their friends are preparing to celebrate St. Patrick's day. Some will return from overseas to the island of Ireland to do so, apart from those who have been sent into exile by paramilitary groups. Is it not the case that the peace agreement will have delivered fully only when exiles can return to Ireland to join in the celebrations?

I strongly echo my hon. Friend's remarks. Such exile is unacceptable, it must be reversed and we must create the conditions in which it is. Apart from the people to whom my hon. Friend referred, there are many young people who have left Northern Ireland because they have despaired of the inability to create lasting peace and prosperity and a half-decent future in which to bring up their families. I want all those young people to be exiles from Northern Ireland no longer; I want them to return, and I want them to be leaders in Northern Ireland. I do not want any more young people having to find their fortune and to bring up their families elsewhere. They should remain where they belong—with their families and friends in Northern Ireland.

As the Secretary of State examines ways of taking the process forward at this difficult time, will he give the House a guarantee that any change in forces' levels in Northern Ireland will be a decision that he takes alone, and that it will be taken purely on security, and not political, grounds—and after consultation with the General Officer Commanding the Army and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

We all want to normalise security arrangements in Northern Ireland as soon as possible, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman shares that objective. Normalisation is not about making concessions and it is not about wishful thinking. It reflects precisely what is happening on the ground, the progress that we have made and the progress that we have yet to make. I pay tribute to the Garda and the Irish Army for their successes against dissidents. However, we have responsibility for security in Northern Ireland, and I shall listen to the Chief Constable's advice. He and the GOC will decide the troop numbers that they need and where and how they want to deploy them. If they want to make changes, they will announce those changes, which will be made for good reasons, in their own time.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his answer will be gratefully received in Northern Ireland and among the armed forces, and with some surprise, not least because of the disgraceful remarks that he made on Irish television last week, when he described the Army as chinless wonders? I am sure that he now deeply regrets those remarks, so will he take this opportunity to apologise publicly to the Army, and more particularly to the families of soldiers who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland during the recent troubles?

I have absolutely no hesitation in expressing again my regret for the remark that I made. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is, for his own political purposes, slightly egging the pudding, and he is being a little harsh. He will accept that all politicians are allowed the occasional gaffe, if only to remind the public that they are still human.

Is not the Good Friday agreement not only the best agreement on offer but the only one? I would hope that it has the support of all Members of this place, and certainly that of the British people. Is not the best thing now for everybody to come together to support the agreement so that we can realise the hope that is offered by the agreement? Does my right hon. Friend agree that republicans and Unionists work together at many levels in government and throughout other institutions? Does that not offer real hope for success?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite the understandable expressions of anger and some acrimony that followed the unfortunate but inevitable decision by the Government to suspend the institutions, people from different parties and different parts of the political spectrum are continuing to work extremely well throughout Northern Ireland, most notably in local government. We can get progress only with agreement on the part of Unionists, nationalists and republicans. That requires confidence on all sides, which was badly dented earlier this year. It is to restoring the confidence that all parties need to go forward that we are devoting our energies, and we shall continue to do so.

What discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the complement of his Department's Ministers since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive. [113216]

No discussions have taken place with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the complement of Northern Ireland Office Ministers since suspension took place on 12 February.

Given the disarray and acrimony among the pro-agreement parties, surely it is unrealistic to imagine that there will be an early return to an Executive in Northern Ireland. Surely the Secretary of State is burying his head in the sand to think so. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his view? It is unrealistic to expect two Ministers to cover 10 Departments in Northern Ireland. As it may be some time before an Executive is re-formed, surely we need extra Ministers to ensure that important decisions can be made and implemented and that we have the continuation of good government.

He is looking for a job.

I do not know whether that was an offer by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson).

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the parties are continuing to talk round the table and the ceasefire remains intact, the two Governments are absolutely right in their determination to keep all possible avenues open so that parties can take the important extra step?

Yes, that is very important, and it is particularly important that the two Governments continue to work closely together. We are working with them and in co-operation with the parties. The consultations that both Governments started and had with the parties last week will continue in Washington, as I have said, over St. Patrick's day. Next week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will meet to review what progress has been made, and I think that that is to be followed by an intensive period of activity prior to the Easter break.

If he will make a statement on levels of employment in Northern Ireland. [113217]

Latest estimates derived from the labour force survey show that there were approximately 691,000 persons employed in Northern Ireland in the period November 1999 to January 2000.

I thank the Minister for that information and congratulate him on his work in ensuring that unemployment has fallen steadily in Northern Ireland over the past three years. I commend the work of the Industrial Development Board, so ably chaired by Alan Gillespie. Does my hon. Friend share my amazement that the £400 million loan guarantee and the £38 million of intervention fund grants were described by Harland and Wolff management, in its tender for the Cunard liner, as too little, too late, and contrast that with the general welcome that has been given by both sides of the House to the £500 million loan guarantee given to British Aerospace, which will result in many jobs?

I thank my hon. Friend for making a good point. The scale of the offer to Harland and Wolff was unprecedented. It involved two Departments: the Department of Trade and Industry and the Northern Ireland Office. It is a matter of regret that the yard did not obtain the contract; if it had, future employment could have been guaranteed to some extent.

In spite of the Minister's heavy load, he will be aware of the fears of Harland and Wolff's 1,700 employees and the many hundreds of others whose livelihood depends on continuous employment in the shipyard. Although the recent lack of success is disappointing, will he continue to work with management and trade unions to secure a future for Harland and Wolff and to save the shipyard from closure?

I met senior management of Harland and Wolff last Friday, after the announcement was made. I have offered to meet them again to discuss what assistance we can offer the company in bidding for future contracts, because we value the yard and the type and quality of work it brings to Northern Ireland's economy. I am due to meet unions to discuss their concerns. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the possibility of the Ministry of Defence revising its timetable for placing orders and seeking quotes from various yards within the United Kingdom in respect of MOD contracts?

It is more appropriate that I first discuss in detail with the company the contracts for which it intends to bid. If it wants additional support from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and me in terms of making representations to other Departments, we stand ready to hear its requests and to make such representations.

What assessment he has made of when the decommissioning section of the Belfast agreement will be fully implemented. [113218]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, under the Good Friday agreement all parties are committed to working to achieve complete decommissioning by May 2000. In the context of the implementation of the overall settlement, the obligation is on the paramilitaries to make clear how and when they will put their illegal arms fully and completely beyond use. They should do so without delay.

Can the Minister confirm the parliamentary answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), to the effect that since the Good Friday agreement more than 2,400 injuries and 49 deaths have been inflicted by terrorists in Northern Ireland? Does not that underline the importance of making no more significant concessions to Sinn Fein until there is meaningful and verifiable decommissioning?

Of course any violence is to be deplored and no member of the Government would apologise on behalf of any party involved in violence. We will behave toward such parties in the appropriate way. However, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that our actions should not be regarded as concessions; they are all part of the Good Friday agreement. It is not true to say that we are making concessions. What we are doing is delivering on the obligations that we and all the other parties made when we signed up to the Good Friday agreement.

Will the Minister join me in deploring the fact that not one of his colleagues on the Government side of the House seems interested in decommissioning, or has asked a question on that issue? Will he confirm that he and the Secretary of State still consider decommissioning an essential part of the Belfast agreement, and that they will not be beguiled by the unilateral dissent from the 22 May date demonstrated by the junior Minister at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin? Can the Minister—[interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not want to hear about decommissioning. Has the Secretary of State obtained an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)? Does the IRA intend to disarm, and if so, when?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time, but if he was, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealing earlier with questions from both sides of the House on the subject of decommissioning. And a few moments ago, I dealt directly with a question on decommissioning from an Opposition Member. With all the respect that I can summon for the hon. Gentleman, I conclude that he was not listening, or he chose to ignore what took place earlier.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State said earlier that decommissioning could take place only in the context of the overall implementation of the agreement? Are they both aware that that is an exact repetition of the IRA demand made in its statement to General de Chastelain in February this year?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to work into his question and our answer some sort of collusion that does not exist. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given a proper assessment of the situation as regards decommissioning, in the context of the Good Friday agreement. To seek to misinterpret or reinterpret that is nothing short of mischievous. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to be mischievous, that is his prerogative. We are seeking to bring about peace, and I am sure the entire House would agree that that is the right thing to do.

Will the Minister give an assurance to the House this afternoon that the Executive will not be reconvened until there has been a serious start on decommissioning?

The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware of the fact that we are seriously engaged with our colleagues from Ireland and all the other parties that signed up to the agreement in trying to get the process back on track. I shall not second-guess where those discussions will lead. However, we are seeking to deliver every part of the Good Friday agreement, which includes obligations on decommissioning.

May I press the Minister further? What evidence is there that there will be any decommissioning before 22 May?

At the moment, there is no evidence that decommissioning will be completed—or even started—by 22 May. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be involved in discussions with the Taoiseach next week, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met our Irish colleagues and representatives of the political parties last week. We are trying to deliver the Good Friday agreement in full. We shall continue to pursue that objective.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the incidence of beggars in the street caused by economic migration to this country is an affront? Will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) asked him two weeks ago: why do council tax payers have to pick up the bill for the mess in the Home Office, which deals with a record number of bogus asylum seekers who come here because the Government's policy has made the country a soft touch for economic migrants?

First, we are making available up to £10 million of extra special grants to support local authorities this year. As for the rules on asylum, they were introduced by the Conservative Government. In the teeth of Conservative opposition, this Government are changing the asylum rules so that from 3 April proper asylum measures will be in place for the first time, no thanks to the Conservative party.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that people throughout the west midlands and all areas that depend on the Rover group are holding their collective breath this afternoon as reports come from Germany? Does he agree that it is intolerable that people should hear about further threats to their livelihoods from a newspaper leak in south Germany? Does he also agree that BMW and the Government agreed an aid package on the basis of BMW's long-term commitment to the Rover group and that BMW should remember that in its board meeting tomorrow, and keep faith with the many thousands of people throughout the country who have kept faith with them over the years? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to safeguard jobs in that vital manufacturing industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it clear that we have been willing to back BMW's plans with Government support. That has been made clear repeatedly in the past few months, and was reiterated today. We are in close touch with the company. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke to the chairman of Rover today; he will also speak to the BMW chairman. He has made clear the enormous strategic importance that we attach to safeguarding Rover's future. We shall do everything we can, including making good our offer of support, to safeguard the future of the plant.

Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that he had no plans to increase tax. Yesterday, his press secretary—[Interruption.]

Order. Less noise down there.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister's press secretary said that the Government had increased taxes. In that new spirit of honesty, will the Prime Minister admit that Labour's promises on taxes at the election were a total, barefaced election lie?

I certainly will not. We promised that we would not raise the basic, standard or higher rate of tax, and we kept that promise. For the first two years, the Government's duty was to cut the huge deficit that we inherited. However, this financial year, the tax burden falls; that will happen again next year. Future years depend on Budget decisions. No risks will—or should—be taken with the strength and stability of the economy.

Well, the Prime Minister has obviously forgotten what he said. He said he had

no plans to increase tax at all.

our proposals do not involve raising taxes.

we want people to pay lower taxes.

the programme of the Labour Party does not imply any tax increases.

The entire Tory case that there is a … hidden agenda … of tax increases is simply untrue.

Not at all.

He is a liar.

Order. Where did that come from? Where did that come from? [Interruption.] Order. I see that no one is going to own up, but I distinctly heard it.

This quote—

our principle to establish sound public finances comes first—[Official Report, 25 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 170.]

And the Prime Minister still will not admit what is clearly true: he has broken that whole long list of election promises. Now that he is letting his press secretary speak on the record, he will have to get used to this problem because we can see that his answers are less honest than those of his press secretary. "Less honest than Alastair Campbell" are not words that any of us want on our tombstones. His Government have increased taxes on mortgages and marriages, petrol and pensions, savers and self-employed, large businesses and small, air travel and insurance, and home buying and charities. The result is not only that taxes have gone up, but that they are continuing to rise. Will he admit not only that he has broken his promise not to raise taxation, but that he is continuing to break that promise?

No. The figures are 36.5 per cent. for 1997–98 and 37.4 per cent. for 1998–99, falling to 37 per cent. this year and 36.8 per cent. next year. I also have the figures that the right hon. Gentleman agreed to when a member of the Cabinet in 1996. I think the House should hear them: 36.3 per cent. in 1997–98, 36.6 per cent. in 1998–99, and 37.1 per cent. and then 37.6 per cent. We can simply look at the Tory record. If it is immoral to raise taxes ever, then the last Tory Government were immoral, were they? I have looked at the record under Margaret Thatcher. The tax burden rose by 3 per cent. Was she immoral? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am sorry to say that about someone who I know means so much to the right hon. Gentleman, but we do not have to look at the last Tory record. Let us look at the last two years of the Tory Government, when he was a Cabinet Minister. The tax burden went up a full 2 per cent. Was he immoral?

Let us have a look. Everything that the Prime Minister has said is based on the Chancellor's way of calculating the tax take.

No. The PricewaterhouseCoopers figures exclude the working families tax credit as a tax cut; if it is added, the figures are as I said.

What is moral about breaking every promise on taxation, and delivering worse public services at the same time? Let us have an answer now: does the Prime Minister admit that he has broken all those promises? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that Britain has the fastest-rising tax burden in the developed world. The Institute of Fiscal Studies says that

there is no question that UK taxes are rising.

Order. I will have order in the House, on both sides.

Every independent organisation agrees that the tax burden is continuing to rise. No independent organisation accepts the figures that the Prime Minister just gave, because there is no institute of manipulation and broken promises.

No. The promise that we made about the basic, standard and higher rates of income tax has been kept, and rightly too; but we do not, I repeat, make any apologies for having got rid of the budget deficit in our first two years. Surely what the country needs above all else economically is stability and strength, and surely, when there are more jobs, higher living standards, more take-home pay and greater stability in the economy than we have had for years, that is the right test of an economic policy. If we went back down the road proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—massive tax cuts, at the same time as promises of extra spending—we would end up with cuts in public spending, increased taxes, and boom and bust. That is the truth.

We would not end up with those things. Of course we would not. What about saving the hundreds of millions of pounds that are being spent on asylum seekers because the right hon. Gentleman has made this country a soft touch? What about saving tens of millions of pounds on preparing for the euro, when people do not want to join the euro? What about saving the extra £1,000 million that the right hon. Gentleman has spent on running Whitehall? What about saving on the welfare budget, which has run out of control while we have proposed savings of £3 billion?

As for that last rant, let me first deal with the welfare position. Under this Government, the welfare bills on social and economic failure are £4 billion down as a result of the new deal. On welfare spending, even if the working families tax credit, the increased child benefit and the extra money for pensioners, which the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to, are included in that—let me give him the figures—it is a 1 per cent. real-terms increase over this Parliament. When he was in office, it was a 4 per cent. real-terms increase, so contrast that with the idea that he will get all this money out of the welfare budget.

The Prime Minister will be aware that many Labour Members take every opportunity to lobby him for extra resources for our constituencies, particularly in health and education. Has he received any representations from Conservative Members for cuts in services in their constituencies, given their tax guarantee? Does he believe that we can spend more if we are getting less in?

I should inform the House of the latest stage of the Conservatives' thinking. What they now desire to do is not just to oppose the extra money on schools and hospitals as reckless and irresponsible; they are now saying that they are going to savage the welfare budget. But the part of the welfare budget that they will savage is the extra £100 for pensioners, the extra child benefit, the working families tax credit and the new deal. We will expose it day in, day out before the election.

The House is rightly concerned about possible overheating of the economy, but we should be much more concerned about the clear overheating of the leader of the Tory party. Will the Prime Minister resist the Conservative-led endeavours to get into a Dutch auction about tax? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that it remains his commitment and his ambition to get our health service spending—what people really care about out there—up to European levels sooner rather than later?

We want to ensure that proper funds go into the national health service. We want, too, to ensure that hard-working families get the benefit of saving as much of their income as they can, which is why we have the basic rate income tax cut, but taxes should be cut consistent only with the proper management of the economy. Of course, that is the case.

At a time when we are seeing cardiac operations postponed, insufficient provision in intensive care, and the health service not meeting the aspirations that it felt it could attain under a new Labour Government, should not the priority for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister be further investment sooner rather than later, rather than a tax cut next month, which all evidence of public opinion shows people do not want as the public priority?

It is, of course, important to get the investment in the health service, but I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that we are already putting a substantial amount of extra investment into the health service. This is, after all, the first year of significant additional increases in health spending. For the first two years, for the very reason that I was giving earlier, we had to ensure that we brought the public finances under control, but we need to ensure that we get that extra investment—and we are. That is the very reason why we now have 4,000 new nurses in the national health service and why all the accident and emergency departments are being renovated.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to express the House's gratitude to the members of the disability rights task force for the excellent work they have carried out over two and a half years? Does he have a message today for the newly appointed members of the Disability Rights Commission, who start their work next month?

We are proud of the work that will be undertaken by the Disability Rights Commission. I am sure that it will do an excellent job. That was a manifesto commitment, and we have fulfilled it. I am delighted to see that it has so much support everywhere in the country.

:Given that there are now over 48,000 school classes with 31 or more pupils and that the number of secondary school classes with 36 or more pupils has more than doubled since he took office, should the Prime Minister's election slogan have been not "education, education, education", but "humbug, humbug, humbug"?

There are 300,000 five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of fewer than 30 pupils who were not in classes of fewer than 30 pupils during the time of the previous Government. The reason for that is simple: we took the measures necessary to reduce class sizes and we made the necessary investment. The hon. Gentleman opposed that investment. The truth is that we can get class sizes down only if we make the additional investment in the system. We are making that investment and the hon. Gentleman's party is opposing it.

One of the things that is wrong with the Leader of the Opposition is that he gives slapheads a bad name. I have a possible untapped tax suggestion for the Prime Minister, which could be developed. The exchange of goods and services throughout the world accounts for only a small amount of the money that changes hands. Most money is involved in currency speculation. If there were to be an internationally led tax on currency speculation, it would raise millions of pounds that could be used in Mozambique and other areas to tackle problems in the third world. Will our Government take a lead to see that that is on the agenda, because it needs to be done, not just by this Government but by other Governments and financial centres?

That is an interesting suggestion. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have paid close attention to it. The best way to help the developing world is through the cancellation of debt. I am proud of the fact that our Chancellor and our Secretary of State for International Development have led the way on that. The Government are also increasing the aid and development budget, which means that millions of people throughout the world are feeling the benefit of our policies. I have a feeling that, although we will pay careful attention to my hon. Friend's suggestion, we will continue with our policy.

In welcoming the lobby here today, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that our dairy farmers are the best and most efficient in Europe, but have suffered the costs of gross negligence because of the Tory handling of BSE and the lowest prices in Europe as a result of the Government's failure to protect them from the larger processors and supermarkets? Does the Prime Minister really believe that 8p a pint for our dairy farmers is enough for them to survive? If not, what action will he take?

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, on 30 March I have a meeting with representatives of the National Farmers Union and representatives of farmers in every part of the United Kingdom. We will see what measures we can take to help the dairy industry and other sectors, such as the pig industry, that are experiencing real difficulties. As I have said constantly, there is a limit to the amount of public subsidy we can provide. We are putting in a significant amount of money. We understand that the position has worsened recently, particularly for the dairy sector, and we will do what we can. I will say no more before the meeting on 30 March. We are aware of the problems, but we need long-term solutions as well as solutions to get them over a short-term crisis.

Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I tell him very bluntly, man to man, that—[Interruption.] Yes, I have been waiting years to tell my right hon. Friend this, whether he likes it or not. Does he know that, in my constituency, 4,200 Airbus workers are cheering the Government's decision to pay £530 million into the Airbus project, which will create 1,400 jobs in my constituency?

I shall certainly use my renowned influence with the Welsh Assembly to make the points that my right hon. Friend has just made. It is a very important investment, which will not only bring jobs, but safeguard a large part of the United Kingdom's technological and skill base.

May I turn the Prime Minister's attention to the morality of the taxation of employee benefits? For example, does he think that, when he paid for his nanny and butler to go to the south of France—for their first-class airfare and their holiday at the flat of the then Paymaster General—it was fair that the taxation liability for that holiday should have fallen on the nanny and the butler, rather than on him as their employer?

That is about the level of today's Conservative party. I do not know what nonsense there is about me having a butler—thank you very much—but, if the hon. Gentleman has any complaint—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Hayes, it is not your turn to ask questions.

If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has any complaint, he can take it to the appropriate authority. I should have thought that, when he had the chance to ask a question of the Prime Minister, he might have thought of a better one.

Now that the £28 billion inherited public deficit has been eliminated, does the Prime Minister agree that it is a cause of optimism that, this year, economically, we have decreasing unemployment, stable prices and economic growth? Does he agree that a strong economy is needed to deliver a social justice agenda, for stronger public services, and for improvements for the poor and disadvantaged in our society? At the core of it, at the next general election, is not the real moral choice between a Government who care for a social justice agenda and an Opposition who, 20 years ago, threw such an agenda overboard?

It is important not only that we have rising prosperity in the British economy, which we have, but also that that prosperity is extended to everyone. That is the difference between the two sides. It could be no more clearly demonstrated than in the new deal, a policy that has delivered literally 200,000 people in unsubsidised jobs. The Conservatives consigned those 200,000 people to the scrap heap. Under new Labour, those people have been given choice and opportunity. That is the difference in the moral values between the two parties.

Having declared my interest in livestock, I have also readily taken the advice of my friends to look after my day job. Does the Prime Minister accept reports that, compared with their Great Britain counterparts, Northern Ireland farmers have fared disproportionately badly, sustaining a 79 per cent. drop in income since 1995, compared with a 60 per cent. drop in Great Britain? Will he give us an assurance that he will urgently consider the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Select Committee on the current problems in the livestock industry, and seek Treasury support to bring relief urgently?

Farmers in Northern Ireland will be represented at the 30 March meeting that I mentioned a moment ago. The problem that the farming industry has had, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, has been a combination, obviously, of the strong pound, which has caused problems, plus the leftover from the BSE crisis, which has hit not only the beef sector, but other sectors. We will do what we can in the short term to help the industry, and we have already drawn down very considerable sums to do that. However, it must be tied to a long-term strategy for the future health of the industry. The farmers that I meet do not want to be dependent on subsidy. They have a good business and they are working extremely hard. Our agricultural produce is probably the finest anywhere in the world. We have to make sure that farmers live within a long-term strategy that gives them a viable future.

Thank you. Time is up.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

There can be no points of order until after the statement.