How many integrated schools in Northern Ireland (a) at present exist, (b) existed in 1992 and (c) are at the planning stage. [16231]

At present, there are 33 grant-aided and four independent integrated schools in Northern Ireland. In addition, four schools have been granted conditional approval for transformation to integrated status from September 1998, and proposals from a further six schools are under active consideration. In September 1992, there were 16 grant-aided schools.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, although integrated schooling is not a solution to the deep divisions in Northern Ireland society, it plays a crucial role in heightening understanding and tolerance of different cultures and religions? Will he say whether the Northern Ireland Office is taking any steps to encourage existing schools to transform themselves into integrated schools?

I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. We are encouraging existing schools to transform themselves into integrated schools, and an unprecedented number—five schools— have done so this year. Creating new schools causes real capital expenditure problems. Some £28 million will be spent on integrated schools in the next three years, which is a large proportion of the expenditure on major school works. We want to encourage schools to submit genuine, active proposals for transformation. That is a major step forward.

Does the Minister agree that there is a considerable and significant level of voluntary integration in addition to existing designated integrated schools? Does he agree also that the education for mutual understanding programme is improving links between state-controlled schools and Roman Catholic maintained schools and is helping to improve respect for different traditions? Will the Minister monitor closely all applications for new integrated schools that might threaten the viability of existing secondary schools in Northern Ireland?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point about voluntary integration, school transformation proposals must involve a significant amount of integration. The general point is that most schools in Northern Ireland have become extremely segregated, and therefore find it difficult to move quickly to integration. We accept happily that it is our duty under statute to stimulate school integration, but we must achieve a balance between that duty and being fair to the other schools and other children in the system.

What responses her Department has given to reports published by the Northern Ireland Forum. [16232]

The forum has produced 17 reports since its inception, of which 13 have been submitted to the Government.

One report, on electoral abuse, has not yet been formally received. Two reports, on long-term unemployment and on integrated transport policy, are under consideration. All the other reports submitted have been carefully considered, and Ministers have responded in writing or met a delegation from the forum.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. When he receives the report of Standing Committee A of the Northern Ireland Forum on electoral abuse, will he examine it closely, bearing in mind the fact that its findings and recommendations demonstrate the urgent need for electoral reform, both in the preparation of the register and lists and in the use of the register in relation to proxy voting and postal voting? Hon. Members of all parties are concerned about the integrity of electoral arrangements in Northern Ireland, and their concerns are buttressed by an important BBC "Spotlight" programme a few months ago, prepared by Stephen Walker. All that requires the Department to recognise the need for a root-and-branch look at the electoral arrangements.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We take allegations of electoral abuse extremely seriously. All parties in Northern Ireland have been asked to make submissions to the Government, and we have our own internal review of the matter in the Northern Ireland Office. In addition, my hon. Friend will know that the House's Northern Ireland Select Committee is examining that important problem. We take it extremely seriously, and we look forward to receiving both reports in the new year.

Is the Minister not concerned that, when the matter was investigated by Standing Committee A of the forum, the committee produced more than 20 recommendations or suggestions for improving the electoral system in Northern Ireland? Surely we must be concerned that, after all these years, there are so many problems with the electoral system in Northern Ireland, and nothing appears to have been done about them. The matter must be looked at closely, and something must be done as soon as possible.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He must bear with us, as we have been in office only since May, but all parties share his view that there are extremely serious problems. Every party in Northern Ireland, without exception, has written to me about the difficulties that they have encountered in respect of electoral abuse. I look forward to meeting the chairman of the standing committee of the forum and other members on the matter which, as I said in my previous reply, is extremely serious.

What plans she has to meet the Irish President to discuss the peace process. [16233]

What plans she has to meet the Irish President to discuss the peace process. [16234]

I hope to meet President McAleese when she visits Northern Ireland in the future. President McAleese has taken "Building Bridges" as the theme for her presidency. I warmly welcome this, and I look forward to hearing the President's views on a variety of topics in the near future.

I note that my right hon. Friend joins me in congratulating President McAleese on her election. Does she agree that the excellent work in all parts of the community carried out by Mary Robinson, the former President, has provided a positive foundation on which President McAleese can build?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The legacy that Mary Robinson left is a positive one. Now she has left to continue the work on human rights elsewhere, but I am sure that she has left a good base which President McAleese will study carefully, because it consists of listening to and encouraging people towards an accommodation, just as, in parallel, we in the north will continue to build bridges and work for progress and accommodation in the talks.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the President the work of the Great Famine Commemoration Committee in my constituency? The work of that committee involves recognising the tragedy of the lives lost in the great famine, but the committee also thanks those who gave support to the people who arrived on the shores of Liverpool and elsewhere, and commemorates the achievements of Irish people in Britain.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The famine and its after-effects are part of our history, as they are part of Ireland's. The famine's consequences, which my hon. Friend described for her constituency in Liverpool, continue to affect the lives of many people in Britain and Ireland. As I am sure she is aware, in a statement in May my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed his regret for the famine, and paid tribute to those who have settled in this country, many in Liverpool. A memorial proposed for Liverpool will focus on the famine, commemorating the victims who passed through Merseyside and the help that many people in Liverpool gave.

As the Secretary of State knows, the talks process in respect of the Irish Republic involves important constitutional issues, and, indeed, issues of international law. Does she realise our surprise when we were told recently by officials in the Northern Ireland Office that there exist understandings with the Irish Republic of a constitutional nature beyond those disclosed in public documents? Does she realise our shock when we were told later, in response to a question from me, that the Northern Ireland Office has never bothered formally to consult the Government's experts in international law in the Foreign Office? Will it now seek advice on these important matters of constitutional and international law and will it publish that advice?

I do not know the specific reference that the hon. Gentleman is making to a Northern Ireland civil servant, and the information that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I assure him that we will certainly take advice from international lawyers and that we take advice at the moment from our own lawyers, and those in the Home Office where relevant. I guarantee that—as we have done elsewhere in Northern Ireland— where it is relevant, viable and possible, we will put the information in the public domain.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the greatest contribution that any of us can make to building bridges is to get a political settlement that can be supported by the vast majority of people in the north of Ireland? What deliberations has she had with the Irish Government and the parties within the talks to ensure that the review plenary sessions on Monday and Tuesday next week will be so positive that, in effect, we can focus on clearly defined objectives to reach a settlement?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mat question. I agree whole-heartedly with the first part of his statement: a political settlement reached by accommodation, based on consent, is the only way in which we will have a different future from the violent history that we have had.

In terms of where we go from here, as hon. Members from the parties in Northern Ireland will know, discussions are taking place now, in bilateral and other formats, to begin to try to move the process forward, so that we have specific recommendations to make at the review plenary on 1 to 3 December. We are working very hard to progress that; I am sure that others are as well. On Monday, we will discuss what form it will take. I hope that it gives us something concrete with which to move to Christmas.

When the Secretary of State speaks with the President of the Irish Republic, will she raise the matter of the President's announcement that she would make frequent visits to Northern Ireland? Will those visits be controlled under the proper protocol arrangements, or will the President be at liberty just to come and go as she pleases?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I presume that it will be normal protocol, just because of the advice that will be needed for somebody in the President's position moving around. When we hold the EU presidency in the next six months, I hope that we can, with the minimum of protocol, invite people from across Europe to see the progress that is being made in Northern Ireland in terms of the talks, the economy, investment and economic and social stability, so that people in Northern Ireland realise that, although they want peace in the months and years ahead, many people in Europe and elsewhere wish it too.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that a central requirement of the settlement that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned is a cross-border body with executive powers, and that the overwhelming majority of the pro-Union community reject that as any basis for settlement?

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. Different parties have different parts that they consider to be essential to some sort of final accommodation—these include devolution in terms of an assembly, cross-border co-operation and the nature of the powers of that body. Surely, the point of negotiation and discussion is to consider the basic tenets that each party brings with it, whether it be cross-border co-operation, a devolved assembly or a change in east-west relations. That is what discussion, debate and negotiation should be about. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman finds it within himself to join those talks in the future, because his contribution would be welcome.

How would the Minister view visits by various representatives from Northern Irish parties to Dublin in the interests of reciprocating the important and urgent need to build bridges in the negotiations?

I would welcome participation, debate and discussion among all the different players and parties. I should like them to be fully engaged in the process. I hope to see others who are currently outside the talks or are not fully part of them come into the talks and play a fuller role, because that would help the process considerably.

Are we not at a decidedly premature stage of the political talks for the Prime Minister to be inviting Mr. Adams to Downing street? Does the Secretary of State not appreciate the public outrage when, only last week, a Sinn Fein council said that, if it did not get its own way, it would go back to what it knows it does best? Let me assure the right hon. Lady that, if we were still in office, we would not be inviting Mr. Adams to Downing street.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if he were still in office, he would not be inviting Mr. Adams in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—openly, above board and straightforwardly. When the Conservative Government did it in the past, they did it behind closed doors and without acknowledging it. At least we are doing it in a straightforward and open way. The Prime Minister has made it patently clear that, if groups and parties sign up to the ceasefire and accept the Mitchell principles of a democratic and constitutional way forward, we will treat them as normal. The Prime Minister is in a cycle of talks with all the parties and he will treat them all the same. Let us do it openly, not in a hidden way.

If she will make a statement on the amount of European funding that has been secured for Northern Ireland over the last five years. [16235]

European structural funds support secured during the past five years comes to 1,632 million ecu, which is about £1,200 million. All the programmes negotiated with the European Commission have been funded for the period 1994 to 1999, with the exception of the special support programme for peace and reconciliation, which, so far, has had funding approved for 1995 to 1997. That reflects Northern Ireland's objective 1 status. The structural funds allocation has made a significant contribution to addressing the region's needs and circumstances.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the work of the district partnerships set up to distribute European peace and reconciliation money? Does my hon. Friend agree that that important work has been further enhanced by the bold decision of the House's Standing Committee A in the early hours of the morning to end, once and for all, the appalling practice of internment without trial?

I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, in all directions. Recently, I visited two partnerships, in Ards and in Newry. I have been impressed by the work done by those bodies. All parties and those outside political parties such as trade unions, business and commerce, engage with each other in the interests of everybody in the community. They are very encouraging in terms of what they want to do to improve the situation in Northern Ireland with funding and in helping the peace process. It is a complete innovation in the way that funds are distributed and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue.

The European Union's financial support is very much welcomed by the people in Northern Ireland and we thank the Government for the effort that they are making to attract more European Union funding to the Province. However, I want to get the figures into context and avoid any misunderstanding. The Minister referred to £260 million a year that comes from the European Union. What is the comparable figure coming from Her Majesty's Government to Northern Ireland?

The right hon. Gentleman has experience of European matters as a former Member of the European Parliament. Structural funds and other money that we receive from the European Union are important for peace and reconciliation. He is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the £8 billion that comes from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who know how important it is for Northern Ireland to be properly funded. The right hon. Gentleman's point is important, because health, education, transport and security are funded by the British taxpayer.

I thank my hon. Friend for his response. I share his admiration for the grants that are channelled into Northern Ireland: I fully support that. However, will he have regard to the fact that some of those grants could have a devastating effect on other parts of the United Kingdom? The recent announcement of a grant to develop glass manufacture in Northern Ireland could affect the industries in my area, particularly in Knottingley where my constituents work.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I assure him that full account was taken of the points that he made about the glass industry in his area. I also thank him for referring to the fact that Northern Ireland is a special case. Peace and reconciliation money does not have an impact on the way in which funds are allocated in the rest of the United Kingdom.

If she will make a statement on the pattern of hospital waiting in Northern Ireland, indicating the three trusts and specialties where the lists are greatest. [16236]

The largest in-patient waiting lists at 30 September 1997 were at the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospitals health and social services trust, the Belfast City Hospital health and social services trust and the Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals health and social services trust. By specialty, the largest waiting lists were in general surgery, ear, nose and throat and trauma and orthopaedics.

I appreciate that answer. Does the Minister accept that the Ards and Ulster hospitals have not been properly funded over the years? Can he give an assurance that the boards will complete contracts much earlier, so that those dealing with specialties can plan their operational procedures better?

The Minister—I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I mean, the minister of religion has given an example of the collapse of the internal market. When we came to office, it seemed impossible for the trusts and boards to come to an agreement. We insisted that they did so as soon as possible. The major cause of the problem this year has been the budget cuts imposed by the previous Government, which have caused waiting lists to soar after a period of decline. We take this matter extremely seriously. We have identified an extra £12 million for this year's budget. I hope to be able to identify more money shortly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that an extra £31 million would go into the health service budget from April next year.

I thank the Minister for his recent. well-received visit to the Downe hospital in Downpatrick. When he was there, he no doubt saw that an attack is being made on the waiting list by a high-quality, cost-effective team in conditions that are 200 years old. That trust has gone through the private finance initiative. Will he put completion of the third phase of a modest hospital on the public capital programme list?

I very much appreciated my visit to Downe hospital as part of the consultations that I have had in that area recently. We were disturbed and disappointed by the collapse of the private finance initiative. I am awaiting the economic analysis and appraisal, so that I can decide on the priority to be given to the Downe hospital.

Following the Minister's recent decision to amalgamate the Royal maternity and the Jubilee maternity at the Royal site, will he confirm that sick babies will continue to be transported by ambulance to the Royal hospital for sick children? Will he confirm that the construction of the proposed Royal maternity unit will be put off for many years? Does he agree that the closure of the Jubilee unit at the City hospital, without consultation, is without precedent?

To deal with the last point first, this morning I received a letter from the affected parties in the case, giving me their undertaking that they would work together to make a success of the new proposals. We inherited a problem from the hon. Gentleman, who is a former Northern Ireland Minister. The most important issue was the clinically best way to deal with small, vulnerable babies and their mothers. We looked at the matter and we brought in independent outside analysts. The clear decision we received was that we should go ahead with our proposals, which we have done. That has been generally welcomed in Northern Ireland.

In addition to the Minister's existing proposals, when will he introduce a comprehensive health promotion strategy?

On 10 December, we shall make an announcement on priorities in the health service in Northern Ireland so that we can remedy defects in the illness patterns not only through the health service, but by involving every Department and agency in Northern Ireland. We shall announce our proposals then.

If she will make a statement on the projected growth in real terms in the health budget for Northern Ireland between 1997–98 and 1998–99. [16237]

It is not possible to anticipate the 1998–99 final allocations announcement which will be made to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee in early December, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the extra £31 million, announced in the July Budget, will be added to the health spending totals for 1998–99 set by the previous Government.

Given that, during the whole of the last Parliament, the House was told by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the money needed for the health service in Northern Ireland—for capital building and general services and to reduce waiting lists—and given that health inflation is about 2 per cent. above real inflation, will the Minister either give an undertaking today or use his best endeavours to ensure that the money going to the health service in Northern Ireland is at least 2 per cent. in real terms above inflation and that additional money is put in to cut waiting lists, rather than allowing them to go on rising?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows that we are committed to a comprehensive spending review so that we can impose the Labour Government's priorities. We have already started that in terms of the reallocation of money in the current year, and we hope to make a further announcement shortly. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient until the Northern Ireland Grand Committee sitting, when all will be revealed to him.

Will the Minister confirm that the sums available to him will be sufficient to complete, equip and open the new Causeway hospital at Coleraine, and will it be equipped to provide cancer services and paediatrics?

I regret that I could not hear all that the hon. Gentleman said. He will know that one of the first actions we took was to end the indecision about the Causeway hospital. I was delighted to meet the chair of the trust this morning and to hear that the project is going ahead well. I look forward to discussing health matters with him in the not-too-distant future.

If she will make a statement on her Department's policies for creating equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. [16238]

The Government are whole-heartedly committed to equality of opportunity in all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. We are actively considering a number of measures on fair employment, sex discrimination, race relations and disability discrimination that will benefit all who live there. In addition, the Government are giving full consideration to the comprehensive report, produced by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, on employment equality and related matters. We intend to publish a response early in the new year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the importance of ensuring equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland, particularly in employment, in which the Catholic population is at a severe disadvantage, will he tell the House what further steps he intends to take to increase employment opportunities for all in the Province?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Good progress is being made in considering the SACHR recommendations. Many of the new Government's proposals on tackling unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment under the new deal initiative, echo the SACHR proposals. The new deal will help members of both communities. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that Catholics are disproportionately represented among the long-term unemployed, so they should benefit in particular.

What additional action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to reduce social security and housing benefit fraud.

We are committed to taking tough action on social security and housing benefit fraud. We are endeavouring to make the social security system more secure, to modernise it and, of course, to punish those who abuse it.

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating those vigilant officials throughout the United Kingdom who uncovered £68 million of housing benefit fraud last year? Will he condemn the inefficiency of those officials who do not act promptly when information is provided, as outlined by Brian Sewell in the Evening Standard earlier this month? Will he encourage the public to blow the whistle on benefit cheats so that those most in need can have better benefits in future?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I congratulate those local authority investigators who are doing their job well, but more can and should be done. That is one reason for setting up the benefit fraud inspectorate, which will raise and maintain standards in counter-fraud activity. We are implementing two further measures from next month, which will make a beneficial difference. First, we are introducing powers to ensure that only people with national insurance numbers can get benefits. That will be of some help in cutting down on fraud. Secondly, we are demonstrating our commitment to crack down, particularly on housing benefit fraud, by giving local authorities valuable new powers, which will allow them to prevent unscrupulous landlords and tenants from reaching an agreement to fiddle the system together. That is happening on too great a basis at the moment. We want to crack down on it as soon as we can.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 November.

This morning, I attended a meeting of the national executive committee of the Labour party. I also visited Ted and Joyce Hawkes, an elderly pensioner couple who have benefited greatly from the measures announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I shall have further meetings later today.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing better demonstrates the difference between our Government and the Conservatives than the fact that, last winter, the Conservatives put VAT on fuel for millions of pensioners, whereas yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a cut and millions of pounds extra for pensioners this winter? Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assure the House that speedy action will be taken to ensure that millions of pensioners benefit from that as soon as possible?

Yes, I certainly will. I should point out that the measures announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend mean that all pensioners will get £20 help with their fuel bill, and there will be £50 help for the 1.7 million pensioners on income support. Taking into account the cut in VAT on fuel, the abolition of the gas levy and the reduction in VAT on energy efficiency materials, pensioners will have £100 a year extra help. That is the difference between a Labour Government who keep their promises and a Tory Government who broke them.

May I ask the Prime Minister a question which need not be a matter of party controversy, but which the Chancellor declined to answer yesterday? I welcome the provision made to help disabled people into work, even though it seems foolish to pay for it through a one-off tax. Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that his pre-election promise not to raise taxes covers disabled people on benefit?

As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already said, we shall conduct a comprehensive spending review properly, but we shall do so on a basis that keeps our election pledges.

This is an important point. Many disabled people who are watching our exchanges will be anxious to know the answers. It has been reported in newspapers that the Government are considering taxing disability living allowance and attendance allowance. Will the Prime Minister rule out taxing those benefits for disabled people?

I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman that we made all our pledges at the election. We shall keep to those pledges. If there are any changes to disability benefit or anything else, they will be announced here.

Those are pretty weasel words. Any changes will be announced here—but no assurances about what those changes would be.

I ask the Prime Minister for another assurance. Can he at least give an assurance that disability living allowance will continue to be paid directly to disabled people and will not be paid to town halls to distribute or spend on their behalf?

I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman that the comprehensive spending review will continue as it should. It is an absurd game to get into ruling this in, ruling this out. He should not go on the basis of newspaper reports. Any changes will be announced in the proper way.

With this Government's willingness to speak to Parliament, one has to go on the basis of newspaper reports. Can the Prime Minister be serious that such a proposal is under consideration? Does he believe that Islington council knows better how to spend the money of disabled people than they know themselves? It should not need a review to answer that one.

Since the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on reviews, will he look again—if he would listen to the question instead of to the Chancellor—at the Lord Chancellor's plans for legal aid, which could prevent people who are seriously disabled in accidents from pursuing personal injury claims? Is not removing their entitlement the wrong way to reform legal aid?

First, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about what he says are the effects of the Lord Chancellor's plans. Secondly, it was the Conservative Government who cut benefit for millions of disabled people. I remember that when we, as an Opposition, proposed better rights for disabled people, his Government opposed them. We shall take no lessons in helping the disabled or the unemployed from him and his Conservative party.

I am asking the Prime Minister for an answer, not a lesson. Our Government increased spending on disability benefits by 300 per cent. Our Government took the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 through the House. If the Prime Minister built on that legacy, he would have the Opposition's support. Disabled people will have found his answers today disappointing as well as unconvincing. He has done nothing to allay the fears that his Ministers have stirred up. Will he at least give an assurance that he will provide clear answers to those questions and put the minds of disabled people at rest— and do so before the European Day of Disabled People next week?

I have never heard anything quite so pathetic as the right hon. Gentleman trying to raise a load of scares and nonsense. We had a pre-Budget statement yesterday, but he has not even asked a single question on it, and that is because he knows that it was good for business, it was good for the unemployed, it was good for pensioners, it was good for child care and it was good for the country. The Tories have already lost a reputation as being the party of law and order, they have lost a reputation for being the party of business and they have lost a reputation for being the party of prudent finance. In short, they are a lost cause.

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential, and in the public interest, to establish the full truth of what happened on the streets of Derry on Bloody Sunday in 1972, especially in the light of the evidence now supplied to him by the Irish Government? What steps is he prepared to take to establish that truth?

The Government certainly recognise the pain and distress caused by the events on 30 January 1972, and also recognise that they are still there after 25 years or more. Extensive and detailed material has been submitted by the relatives and the Irish Government. We shall consider it fully, and it is being examined by officials now. No options have been ruled out, but all the material must be fully examined. When it has been, and the conclusions reached, we shall announce them.

If the Prime Minister cannot spend as much as he would like—and I understand why— on disabled people in Lincolnshire, may I suggest another way in which he might help the people of Lincolnshire? He could give them a Christmas present and support a campaign that is supported by everybody in Lincolnshire, including the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), and all political parties. It would do much for business and tourism in the area. It is the campaign, which is being waged across the county, to upgrade and dual the A46 between Newark and Lincoln. It would cost only a flea bite. The Prime Minister has only to say yes and I promise him rave reviews in the Lincolnshire Echo tomorrow.

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants on that road scheme. [Interruption.] Tory Members ask, "Why not?" but they were in power for 18 years and did not do it themselves. However, that is not to prejudge the issue one way or another, because it has to be considered by the relevant Ministers. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government did not do much for the people of Lincolnshire yesterday. Actually, we did an enormous amount. We put extra money into schools and hospitals— more than his Government wanted to give them. We have had the windfall tax, which will give young people there the chance of jobs and skills. We have got a deal for pensioners and pensioner households of £100 a year or more and we cut value added tax on fuel. I think that we have done rather well by the people of Lincolnshire.

I welcome the Chancellor's statement yesterday on child care proposals, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the obstacle for people who want to work is often the lack of provision of child care? Will he try to expedite the implementation of the proposals as soon as possible?

We shall try, in the light of the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to make progress on that as quickly as possible. The effect of the £300 million programme will be to raise the number of out-of-school child care clubs from some 3,500 at the moment to 30,000. That is an ambitious target, but we believe that we can reach it. By helping parents with the way in which the child care clubs are set up, we shall give a lot of support and help to parents, especially lone parents who desperately need it. That is an excellent example of how Government can help people back to work and ensure that people carry out better their responsibilities to their own children.

May I return to a question that I fear the Prime Minister failed to answer last week—which comes first, cutting class sizes and waiting lists or cutting taxes to achieve the 10p tax rate?

We actually wish to do both. The decisions that are made on tax are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a matter for the Chancellor. We had two specific pledges on which we fought the last election. One was getting class sizes down for five, six and seven-year-olds and the other was on the waiting lists.

They are going up.

Yes, because of the situation that we inherited. We shall ensure that we put both pledges in place by the time of the next election and then the country will see the difference between a Government who keep their promises and a Government who break them.

I am surprised that the Prime Minister cannot tell us which comes first, an early pledge or a long-term aim. It is a simple question. Let me put it in this way to him. He has told us that there are hard choices to make, and this may not be his Government's fault. Nevertheless, it is a fact that he is now presiding over the longest waiting lists on record in the NHS, and class sizes that are predicted to be the largest for 20 years. Surely now he can tell us that an early pledge to cut waiting lists and class sizes comes before a long-term aim to cut income tax.

I am glad, first, that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that is not the fault of the present Government. That is an important point to make. However, we are actually putting in additional resources both to schools and to hospitals, in real terms, over and above the resources that the previous Government put in. That will allow us, in time, to meet both those pledges.

We want to try to reduce tax rates at the bottom end of the income scale precisely because that will help people back into work. It is part of a package. We can do both, but I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that that can be done—we can get a better starting rate of tax for people as well as getting class sizes and waiting lists down—only if we run the economy in an effective and efficient way. That means keeping a tight grip on public finances and not giving in to every demand that is made. I am afraid that that is the difference between government and opposition.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see a recent MORI poll—showing support for the Government at 51 per cent. and support for the Opposition at 35 per cent.—which was undertaken in Richmond, Yorkshire? Does he attribute that result to the policies of the Government or to those of the Opposition?

I do not think that I can claim credit for that; all the credit belongs to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

Will the Prime Minister rule out time-limiting incapacity benefit to 13 weeks? If not, is he not being cruel and cynical in refusing to lift the threat hanging over disabled people?

What is cruel and cynical is nonsense such as that from someone who was a member of a Government who cut incapacity benefit for millions of people. We have said that there will be a comprehensive spending review, and it would be foolish to answer that question until the review is completed. The hon. Gentleman should not read anything into that, and neither should disabled people.

In view of the Prime Minister's commitment to maintaining pre-election promises, how does he justify the extra £3 billion made available to schools and the extra £1.5 billion made available to the national health service in the first six months of his Government, when that money was not even mentioned in our pre-election promises? Does he accept that the term "value added" could well be applied to his Government?

Oh!

No matter what the Tories say, I think that that is a very good point. It shows that I may have understated the matter before. We are not only keeping our promises; we are doing better than our promises.

Does the Prime Minister share my view that the preferred location of the Welsh Assembly should be Cardiff, and that the city hall there is a very fine building indeed? What can he do to impress upon the Labour leaders of Cardiff city council the damage that they will do to the prestige and economy of our capital city if they are not reasonable in their terms for that building? Might the assembly have to look for a new home?

I certainly agree that Cardiff city hall is a fine building, but the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will publish a consultation document setting out the range of options—in Cardiff and elsewhere—for the location of the assembly. That will be done before the Bill setting up the assembly receives a Second Reading.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers are the most valuable resource in education? May I report from schools in my constituency that teachers greatly welcome the £2.3 billion extra money allocated to schools, and also the ideas in the education White Paper? However, as they were disparaged, undermined and blamed for most of the ills of society for so many years by the previous Government, teachers' morale is low. [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister join me in praising teachers, the overwhelming majority of whom work tirelessly for their pupils, and will he place special emphasis on raising teacher morale?

I certainly agree with that, and my hon. Friend should not be put off by the shouts and calls from the Opposition. It is important that we have high teacher morale and I willingly congratulate the vast majority of teachers who do an excellent job in schools up and down the country, often giving of their own time voluntarily to help their pupils. The most important thing that can be done to improve teacher morale is to give the Government's commitment to investment in our schools. That is why over an additional £1 billion is going in next year and why we have a £1.3 billion school repairs programme, which is funded out of the windfall levy, for the lifetime of this Parliament, which will allow thousands of schools to be refurbished and to upgrade their facilities.

Does the Prime Minister feel the slightest tinge of embarrassment that the latest donation of £1 million to the Labour party comes from a company that is paying its workers £2.98 per hour? Can he at least assure us that the £1 million will not buy an exemption from the minimum wage? Finally, will he tell the House, which is dying to know since he said that it would be done quickly, when he eventually repaid Bernie Ecclestone?

The only reason why anyone knows who donates to the Labour party is that we disclose it. In June, the right hon. Lady's party leader said he would disclose the name of donors, but he has never done it. In June, he said that he would publish the Tory party accounts—he has never done it. That is the party that has now said that it will refuse to disclose the past five years' worth of donations. We shall take no lessons from a party that has never ever disclosed a single thing about the dubious money that it gets.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what response he got from the Leader of the Opposition when he called for all parties to reveal their sources of finance for the past five years? Does he agree that the Neill committee will, at worst, be crippled in its investigation of party finance unless it has full information and disclosure? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend carefully consider making sure that the House has the opportunity to ensure that all parties are made to disclose their sources of finance and to open their books? [Interruption.]

I hear a Tory Member shouting out how boring this subject is. It is remarkable how quickly the Tories have lost interest in it. In answer to my hon. Friend, they smuggled out last Friday—the day of the Winchester and Beckenham results, let me remind them—the news that they were refusing to give the details of previous negotiations. Of course it is difficult for Sir Patrick Neill to decide how the present system is working unless he knows how it worked under the previous Government. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are willing to make disclosures, why are not the Tories?

The Government will note that there will be a service in Westminster abbey tomorrow to commemorate the arrival 25 years ago in this country of Ugandan Asians who were expelled by Idi Amin. Will the Prime Minister join me in saying that we shall work together for the time when the colour of someone's skin is no more important than the colour of someone's eyes or hair?

Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the fact that, when the most senior black elected official in this country—Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union—came up for re-election, he gave his personal backing to the person who was challenging him?

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is factually wrong. It is unfortunate, in a question that should have tried to bring people together, that he should have made a silly and wrong point.

On the more serious point about Ugandan Asians, we and, I am sure, hon. Members of all parties, are delighted to pay tribute to the work that they do in our community. They are deeply respected people. The aim of a multicultural, multiracial society is one that all Government Members, at least, fully endorse.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a considerable part of the appalling rise in crime that this country faced under the previous Government can be put down to the anti-social behaviour of persistent young offenders? I urge him to take further action to target those offenders by making them face up to the consequences of their crimes, by putting right the damage that they do to their victims and their communities.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Home Secretary will publish his paper on youth justice tomorrow; it will be widely welcomed in the country, as it will ensure that we get a youth justice system that actually works. Many people, especially the elderly, have their lives made absolute hell by gangs of youngsters who are out of control and are not being dealt with properly by the system.

Our proposals will deal with that, but it is important to say that one of the critical differences between us and the previous Government is that we are trying to tackle the underlying causes of crime as well. That is why I put our measures to tackle the problems of the youth justice system side by side with the new deal for the young unemployed, which gives them the chance to lead a more responsible life and shows that we shall build a different, one-nation society, based on values of opportunity and responsibility going together.

Can the Prime Minister clear up something that is confusing me? How is it that, whenever something is going wrong, such as lengthening hospital waiting lists or increased class sizes, he thinks that it is the previous Government's fault, whereas whenever something is going well, such as the state of the economy and unemployment, he takes the credit? Where is the logic in that?

I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will spend most of his time confused, but I shall try to elucidate the matter for him. I heard the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservatives saying yesterday that we should give them the credit for all the good things that we have been able to do, but they are opposed to the windfall tax, which has provided the new deal for the young unemployed and has happened because there is a Labour Government.

The cut in value added tax on fuel is being implemented by the Labour Government in the teeth of Conservative opposition. The £300 million child care package is available only because we put lottery money into it—a move that the Conservatives opposed. They had 18 years to do what we did yesterday on pensions, and we did it. The new Labour Government are delivering. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is no longer confused.

Most hon. Members welcome the Chancellor's announcement of £300 million of extra funding for out-of-school clubs, which will be beneficial to nearly 1 million children. We know from experience and from what we have seen in the press that many children are vulnerable. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that part of the funding will be used to ensure that proper checks and supervision are carried out by professional people, especially in local government, to ensure that the staff working in those clubs do not cause any problems?

My hon. Friend is right. It is obviously important, in such a big and ambitious programme, to make proper provision to ensure that the staff are suitable. The Department for Education and Employment will work closely with the Home Office to do that. As part of the new deal for the young unemployed, 50,000 places will be allocated specifically to train people and give them skills in the job of caring for young children. It is precisely by combining high qualifications and rigid tests of suitability with the places available that we have the best chance of both meeting our target and avoiding any possible abuse.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said—

Where is the hon. Gentleman?

I am over here. The hon. Member for Garston has said that a poll carried out in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has shown considerable majority support for the Prime Minister's policies. Is that not because the Prime Minister has adopted Conservative policies, and has inherited from the Conservative Government the strongest economy in Europe? From Richmond we have a leader of the Conservative party who is a man of integrity, courage and considerable intelligence. He will become the next Prime Minister of our country.

I know that the hon. Gentleman used to sit above the Gangway; he now sits over in the corner. He is saying that I support the same policies as he does—I get the message. We shall build on that for the future. Indeed, we shall have to make some more room on our side of the Chamber.

I shall not go back over what I have already said, except to say that the windfall tax, the child care package, the deal for pensioners and the extra money for schools are all very different from the policies of the previous Administration. Those policies are welcomed by the vast majority of people. The reason people—I hope—support the Government and gave the Opposition such a drubbing is that they can see a Government who are delivering on their promises, in stark contrast to what went before.