If he will make a statement on the involvement of local government in his better government programme. [35802]

Local government is a key partner in the better government programme. Our White Paper will address working across the organisational boundaries in the public sector so that all involved can deliver simpler, more effective, more coherent and more cohesive government.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the fact that the Government are involving local government in the better government programme. I am sure that he will welcome the enthusiasm and commitment of local government workers—the front-line workers. How is he involving those workers in the better government programme?

The commitment of front-line delivery workers is a sine qua non for the success of the better government agenda. To that end, I have conducted seminars as far north as Edinburgh and as far south as Southampton, meeting front-line workers and finding out their concerns and their priorities for the better delivery of service.

What recent representations he has had on his freedom of information proposals. [35803]

What response he has received to his White Paper on freedom of information. [35810]

I have received more than 550 responses to the freedom of information White Paper "Your Right to Know". The great majority of the respondents supported our proposals. I am today placing in the Library a list of those who responded and copies of the responses received, except where confidentiality was requested. Moreover, I shall place that information on the internet.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that so neurotic were the previous Government in their intense 18-year denial of information programme that it was necessary for me to go to the United States Congress to have questions tabled about an accident that occurred in my constituency, and that information about a death from mustard gas in my constituency in 1943 was obtained only through the United States navy?

Now that a freedom of information Act is on the way, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he intends to do, before the Bill is considered in the House, to ensure that we have improved freedom of information?

I well remember my hon. Friend's valiant efforts to obtain the information about his constituents. The fact that those efforts were required emphasises the necessity to introduce freedom of information legislation in this country, and the Government intend to do so. Meanwhile, we shall continue to operate the code, but we believe that there are other initiatives that we can take.

I have ensured that quangos make their annual reports publicly available, and that public appointments and Departments' plans for tackling the millennium bug are placed on the internet. We believe that the internet is a powerful tool for making government more open, and that the new technology now available goes hand in hand with open government.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I press him further? Given the tremendous interest in a freedom of information Act, when will he publish the Bill, so that there may be the fullest possible discussion about what should be in it?

We are currently considering the responses from the formal consultation. We have already issued instructions to parliamentary draftsmen, as it is our hope that a draft Bill will be published before the summer, so that we can have a further period of consultation to make sure that we get matters right.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is all about more open government? Does not that become increasingly ludicrous when we see press stories of the Secretary of State for Social Security and her Minister of State being reprimanded by the chief press officer at No. 10 for going on "Woman's Hour" and other programmes without having cleared it with him first? Is it not a pathetic representation of Government when members of the Cabinet must get clearance from press officers at No. 10 before they are allowed to speak to the general public? I cannot believe that any Minister in any of the Governments over the past 18 years would have countenanced such a situation. How can one talk about more open government when that situation is allowed to prevail?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman would speak about more open government. The points that he made were nothing to do with freedom of information.

Further to that, have any of those who responded to the White Paper commented on the quality of information supplied by Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the way in which information and news management is handled by No. 10 in particular is compatible with his ideas of what true freedom of information should be?

There was very little in the responses that referred to the present Government's openness, which is certainly far greater than the previous Government's. While we await a more perfect form of freedom of information legislation, we are using the previous Government's code, so that people still have some access to Government papers.

If he will make a statement on the future of the charter programme. [35804]

The Government are committed to making real improvements to all aspects of public services and as part of that, we intend to relaunch the citizens charter programme. I shall provide full details on the shape of the new programme and how we plan to take it forward when it is relaunched later in the year as part of the wider better government initiative.

I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to renewing the charter after the disrepute into which it fell under the previous Government, when it was left with about as much respect as the cones hotline. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to ensure that the charter systems meet the real needs of the public is to ensure that standards of service are met? Can he tell the House what proposals he has to ensure that?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to ensure that standards are met. To that end, we have established the people's panel, to find out what the scientific view is of the quality of service that is being delivered. The charter mark, which is going from strength to strength, shows a marked correlation between better standards of service delivery and whether or not organisations obtain the charter mark.

In seeking to achieve higher standards, has the Minister considered whether there would be benefit in providing incentives to civil servants for coming up with suggestions for savings in the public service?

The hon. Gentleman made available to me information about such schemes that proliferate in America. I made myself aware of similar schemes available in the United Kingdom, including one in the Ministry of Defence, which is extremely successful. That information is being assessed and evaluated by the charter unit, with a view to possible inclusion in the charter programme to be launched later this year.

What provision he has made for people with disabilities to contribute to the consultation process on the freedom of information White Paper. [35805]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to answer this question. Freedom of information is a right that should be enjoyed by all our citizens. The White Paper "Your Right to Know" is available in Braille and large print formats. We have also produced a freedom of information summary leaflet, which is also available in Braille and large-print formats and on audio cassette.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I know, from speaking to disability organisations in my constituency in Milton Keynes, that they very much appreciate the ability to participate fully as citizens in consultation procedures such as this. What responses has my right hon. Friend received from disability organisations and what provision is he making to provide information in accessible formats?

I have received formal responses from the Royal National Institute for the Blind and from the Greater London Association for Disabled People. Their views are very welcome and will be fully taken into account as we develop our proposals. Under our proposals, wherever possible, applicants for information will be able to specify the form in which they would like the requested information or record to be supplied. Of course, that provision will extend to people with disabilities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the situation that existed a few years ago when journalists were finding themselves gagged, unable to report on issues that were in the public interest, such as the dreadful affair of Robert Maxwell? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider including in a freedom of information Bill a freedom to allow journalists to investigate those things which are in the public interest rather than just matters of public salacious curiosity?

Having heard the earlier complaints from the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, I thought that that was exactly what the press were doing.

Is the Minister aware that the entire population of Northern Ireland suffers from the disability of being excluded from membership of the British Labour party? Is he aware of Government policy in a recent document whereby the Government will suppress information about opinion polls that might influence Government policy? Is he aware of a policy to suborn leading public figures to support Government policy without their knowledge? If he is, what steps will he take to allow the people of Northern Ireland to have full freedom of information about Government policy?

I am certainly not aware of that point. It seems a far cry from the question, which is about disability, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman writes to me, I will look into it.

What discussions he has had on improving the quality of European Union regulations. [35807]

Last month, I hosted a presidency conference on better European regulations in Manchester. Over 250 delegates attended, including Ministers, senior regulators, consumer representatives, business people and the social partners. The aim was to work together to find ways in which to improve European regulation. The event was a huge success, and we have drawn together the key messages into an action plan for better European Union regulation which I hope we shall be able to promote with the Commission and other member states.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I very much welcome the drive to bring about better-quality regulation for the benefit of business and citizens. I am glad to hear about the success of the conference. Can my right hon. Friend share with us any specific outcomes to reform European bureaucracy arising from that conference?

The whole House will share in our efforts to improve regulations emanating from Europe. I want to keep the issue high on the European political agenda, which is why I published a 10-point plan of action as a result of the Manchester conference. I have also reached an agreement with the Austrian Government, who take the presidency after us, that they will continue with this theme. We are playing a leading role in the European business test panel, which will improve consultation with businesses on regulations emanating from Brussels. I believe that Europe could also use the citizens first dialogue with the citizens service to learn more from ordinary people about the rules that they find too complex and bureaucratic.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that businesses in my constituency would like to see not only better European legislation, but less of it? Will he tell the House whether, at the conference that he chaired in Manchester, there was any discussion about compliance with regulations, especially in member states other than the United Kingdom?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Unnecessary red tape is not only frustrating, but reduces trade and costs jobs. We are determined in our presidency and in succeeding ones to drive ahead efforts to simplify and to reduce the amount of legislation that comes from Brussels. It is clear that regulations need to be clear, focused and understood. It is also clear that compliance should be universal and on the same basis throughout the European Union.

If he will rename his office to reflect his public service responsibilities. [35808]

Ministerial titles and functions are matters for the Prime Minister.

I was not expecting that reply but, in this day and age, is not the title Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a complete anachronism, straight out of the pages of Gilbert and Sullivan? Should we not be trying to make government accessible to the people, rather than obscure? Even hon. Members are not entirely sure of the full range of important responsibilities that my right hon. Friend has, so people outside must be absolutely mystified.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister technically is primus inter pares in the Cabinet and it would be extremely difficult, as well as unprecedented, for a Secretary of State to be subordinated to another Minister therein. If my hon. Friend is so concerned about redundant titles, may I suggest that he considers the title Leader of the Opposition?

There certainly seems to be little leadership and even less opposition from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is nothing more accessible than Gilbert and Sullivan, and will he direct the Prime Minister's attention to this morning's excellent debate on that subject in the House, when everyone sang from the same hymn sheet?

Which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is exactly the function of the Prime Minister's chief press officer.

What representations he has received on his proposals to ensure the protection of privacy under his freedom of information proposals. [35809]

The White Paper set out proposals to achieve a balance between personal privacy and freedom of information. About 40 respondents to the White Paper specifically commented on that. I am also aware of the evidence that the Data Protection Registrar gave to the Select Committee on Public Administration, which my hon. Friend chairs.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one man's freedom of information can all too easily be another man's infringed privacy? Does he, therefore, agree that we need to ensure that, when the new data protection and freedom of information Acts are introduced, we do not need an ombudsman to resolve disputes between the Data Protection Registrar and the new freedom of information commissioner?

My hon. Friend raises a real problem. It is an issue that we have thought much about and that will be addressed in the draft Bill. We take the point that the right of personal privacy must be protected and we believe that that can be achieved, as it has been achieved in virtually every other modern society. I noted that, at a sitting of the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Data Protection Registrar ended her evidence by saying that she looked forward to working with a new information commissioner.

If he will make a statement on the work of the better regulation task force. [35811]

Since I appointed its members in September 1997, the better regulation task force has made an excellent start in its programme. Christopher Haskins is proving to be an excellent and valuable chairman. On 21 January, the task force published its principles of good regulation, which state that regulation should be transparent, accountable, targeted, consistent and proportionate. The task force will also soon publish the first of its sectoral reviews on consumer affairs.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I agree with his general aims in making the task force's work more consistent and focused, and in making it easier for regulations to be understood. Will he share with the House which matters he is investigating and will be reporting on in future?

The Government are determined to cut all unnecessary red tape, but realise that some regulations are vital for protection of the citizen. Regulations should, first and foremost, deliver benefits to ordinary citizens. They should be fair, properly costed, simple to understand and practical to comply with. The task force is currently examining four key matters: consumer affairs, employment law, charities' funding and social care.

What proposals he has to encourage greater exchange of careers and experience between civil servants and local government officers. [35812]

Encouraging exchanges between the civil service and local government officers is a key part of the Government's interchange initiative. We are working with local government and other sectors of the economy to promote such exchanges of personnel and good practice.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the two services do, indeed, have a great deal to learn from one another, but also that, in the past, relationships between civil servants and local government officers have not been too good? Does he have long-term plans to encourage institutional exchanges between the two services?

The Prime Minister has stated his own vision of such a long-term objective, which will be considered soon within the Office of Public Service. Very good examples of current practice in exchange include Michael Bichard, permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment, who worked previously in local government at Gloucestershire county council; and Mr. Nick Gurney, who—in a reversal of the process—left the Department of Health to become chief executive officer of Portsmouth city council.

Will the Minister give an assurance that, after the devolution measures for Scotland and Wales are completed, civil servants serving the new Parliament and assembly will similarly exchange places with those working in local government, and that boundaries will not be erected within the United Kingdom that prevent the free exchange of such experience?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no restrictions on the interchange of public servants within a unified civil service.

If he will make a statement on progress towards resolving the millennium computer compliance problem in central Government. [35813]

I am pleased to make a statement on that matter. The progress reports that I published on 3 March show that many central Government organisations have reached the testing stage, and in some cases completed work, for significant systems. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced the establishment of a new year 2000 team in the central IT unit in my Department, to follow progress and provide advice to Departments and the wider public sector. He has also extended the remit of the ministerial sub-group, which I chair, to promote action on year 2000 issues across central Government and the entire public sector.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As getting our act together to beat the millennium bug is clearly vital, I greatly welcome the Minister's and the Prime Minister's commitment to achieving that goal. However, time is running away with us, and urgency is the order of the day. We will have to ensure that action is taken comprehensively and in a timely manner. Will my hon. Friend assure me that such action is being taken?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind the House that we have to solve the problem for the sake not only of people in Britain, but of everyone in the global economy. No one is more aware than I am of the need for action. Since taking office, I have established a rigorous and totally open system for monitoring the progress of central Government in tackling the issue. [Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear the Minister.

The role has been expanded to cover the wider public sector, with the remit to chase progress and identify solutions across Departments. The inaugural meeting of the new ministerial Committee, which I chair, will be held later this week. The new unit appointed to oversee that work will be based in my central IT unit and will be headed by Mrs. Mayer, who has just been recruited to the post. We have also selected Ernst and Young to carry out a risk assessment study for the key areas of our national infrastructure. I hope that the company will give me its initial report by May.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health received returns from national health trusts throughout the country outlining progress on millennium compliance. I assure the House that the Government have a real sense of urgency in tackling and beating this problem.

In the light of the view of the chairman of Action 2000 that many organisations will not be able to solve the year 2000 problem in time, and the Prime Minister's admission that Government costs for millennium compliance are £3 billion and rising and that all costs will have to be met from existing departmental budgets, so cuts in services will take place, will the Chancellor now arrange for a Minister regularly to answer questions at the Dispatch Box about progress on millennium compliance? After all, if we can have a specific question session on the millennium dome, is it not more important that the House can ask specific questions on the millennium doom?

I have reported to the House regularly on the millennium bug problem and have appeared before the House every month so to do. Had the previous Administration left us anything other than a skeleton approach to tackling the problem, we would have been well on the way to solving it. When we took over government, we found the cupboard absolutely bare. Not a single ministerial action or plan had been laid down to try to tackle the problem, which we all knew was looming on the horizon.

What measures he has taken to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on small businesses. [35814]

The Government are taking action on a number of fronts to minimise burdens on small businesses, not least in the excellent Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put before the House on 17 March.

Half of our better regulation task force's members have small business interests, and I expect all task force reports to address business burdens. My Department has developed a direct-access Government internet site giving small firms instant access to the regulations, guidance and forms that they need.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome his determination to cut unnecessary red tape. In keeping with the Government's commitment to help central and local government work together better, will he tell the House how the business community has responded to local business partnerships being set up around the country?

The short answer is that the business community has reacted extremely well. Local business partnerships provide a forum within which local business communities and local authorities can discuss all regulatory and enforcement matters. We now have more than 100 local business partnerships and up to 100 more are in the pipeline. To that end, I have travelled the length and breadth of the country encouraging the formation of new local business partnerships.

Has the Minister assessed the impact on small businesses of the welfare-to-work proposals and the abolition of family credit, which was very simple for small businesses to administer? Is it because the new system is so complicated that the Government decided to delay introducing the policy until October next year, well after the date on which they had promised to do something for single mums?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out in full the reasons behind his Budget proposals and the methods of implementation. Small businesses are enthused by his proposals and those of my Department on local business partnerships.

If he will make a statement on his responsibilities in relation to Lancashire. [35815]

As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I am responsible to the Queen for the administration of the Duchy. My particular responsibilities in relation to Lancashire include the Duchy's estates in the county, the appointment of magistrates, the Keeper of the Rolls and four other appointments. I have appointed the lord-lieutenant of Lancashire and the chairman of Lancashire county council as trustees of the Duchy benevolent fund.

Does my right hon. Friend, who formerly represented a Yorkshire constituency, believe that a case can be made for having a Minister answerable in the House on Yorkshire affairs?

My hon. Friend will be aware that our hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) took an opposite view a little while earlier. As a result of the war of the roses—this may embarrass my hon. Friend—I have considerable responsibilities in Yorkshire, including appointing governors to schools, looking after a number of castles and appointing four Duchy church livings.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 April.

This morning, I launched the Labour party's campaign for a yes vote in the coming referendum. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall this evening host a dinner for the Taoiseach to discuss the talks process and renew our determination to bring it to a successful conclusion.

Who requested that the Prime Minister make his call to the Prime Minister of Italy on Wednesday 18 March?

As I have said consistently, I am not going to disclose details of my conversations with the Italian Prime Minister or anyone else. As my press spokesman has pointed out, the call was made by the Italian Prime Minister to me.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that they will be celebrating in the highways and byways of Norfolk tonight? Not only have we seen the demise of the East Anglian mafia, some of whom were more Bugsy Malone than Al Capone, but there has been clarification on the admissions policies for four-year-olds: they will all have the opportunity to go to a nursery, playgroup or school. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the renaissance of education after the death of the nursery voucher?

The nursery voucher was a disastrous idea introduced by the previous Government. We have removed it. We are ensuring nursery education for all four-year-olds. We shall then be well on the way to getting nursery education for three-year-olds as well. That is a Labour Government delivering on their election promises.

When the Chancellor said yesterday that uncertainty over the single currency was contributing to the strength of the pound, what exactly did he mean?

Exactly as he explained. Of course, before the single currency is introduced, there will be a lot of uncertainty about whether it will work.

Is not the uncertainty of which the Chancellor spoke the danger of a weak and fudged single currency—a danger that the Prime Minister refused to recognise last week? Is that not contributing to driving up the value of the pound? Manufacturing is on the brink of a recession. As the current president of the European Union, the Prime Minister is one of the few people in a position to do something about the issue. When does he propose to make up his mind and take action to save British jobs and British businesses by taking a stand against a weak and fudged single currency?

First, may I point out that we have made it clear all along that the criteria should be adhered to? There are many reasons for the current strength of the pound. No Government actions that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested would have any consequence, other than probably an adverse consequence, on the position of the pound. The position that he is advancing is confused and economically illiterate.

How can the Prime Minister simultaneously say that the criteria must be adhered to, while looking at a range of criteria that are not adhered to, and say that this issue is not being fudged? Fudging of the criteria is contributing directly to the high exchange rate, damaging our exporting industries. Why does the Prime Minister not use his influence with the Italian Prime Minister? He uses it for everything else, and can probably even remember the telephone number if he thinks hard enough. Why does the Prime Minister not act in the interests of British jobs and businesses and of the whole of Europe and be clear about the fact that the single currency is being fudged and he should do something about it?

Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there could be nothing more disastrous than the course that I assume that he is advocating, which is for Britain to stand up now and say that it would oppose a whole series of countries going into the single currency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is what the Opposition are saying. First, actually, Britain is not in fact in a position to veto that, since the matter is decided by qualified majority voting. Secondly, it would cause complete mayhem were we to advocate it. Thirdly, it would be utterly pointless. In other words, it would be a combination of all those things that once characterised Conservative Government foreign policy.

With regard to the snide asides in the Leader of the Opposition's supplementary question and in the question of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), taking into account this over-the-top, hyped attack on the Prime Minister's press secretary— [Interruption.]

Order. I want to hear the question.

In responding to such attacks, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that Conservative Members above the Gangway are the party of Sir Bernard Ingham, who misused a letter from Law Officers against the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who described a member of the Cabinet as a

"semi-detached member of the Cabinet",

and who was described by John Biffen as

"the sewer rather than the sewage"?

That being so, will my right hon. Friend treat with the contempt that it deserves this pathetic apology for an Opposition, who do not deal with crime, jobs, welfare and all the issues about which people care?

Yes, I certainly will. There is one reason why the Opposition attack the press spokesman: he does an effective job of attacking the Conservative party. In all the Prime Minister's Question Times, the Leader of the Opposition has not once raised health, education or crime—not once. That is an example of a poor Opposition.

Surely the real issue is not who said what, when and to whom, but whether the Prime Minister understands why there is so much widespread concern about the seemingly unstoppable growth in media power and political influence of Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

Of course I understand the concerns that people have. The only issue is whether BSkyB is treated differently from any other media company or significant British company. The answer to that is no.

The Prime Minister's case seems to be that Mr. Rupert Murdoch is just an ordinary business man, who can be treated like every other ordinary business man. If the Prime Minister believes that, he is just about the only person left in Britain who does. The reality is that one cannot treat somebody who owns a media outlet in the same way as one treats somebody who owns a beans factory. The Prime Minister must realise—I do not understand why he does not—that we must do something about media ownership. The only way of doing so is to amend the Competition Bill, which is to come back before the House in the next few weeks. Will he now see that that is done?

I do understand why it is different, which is why the Competition Bill includes specific new powers to deal with a range of competition issues, including predatory pricing—the issue that has been raised.

As for newspaper proprietors, I meet all of them regularly; I know all of them. I regard that as a sensible part of being the leader of a major political party. As a matter of fact, I have no illusions about any of them.

They are all highly able, highly ruthless and dedicated to the success of their businesses, as I am dedicated to the success of mine.

As it is 1 April, has my right hon. Friend had the same problems that I have had in distinguishing fact from fiction today? I am thinking of two stories in particular—one about the Liberal Democrats' numeracy courses and the other about a Tory truce on Europe, both of which appear to be wrong—while, for the Government, 1 April is a date on which we can put new money into health and education. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Health has announced today that the pledge given last November, that there would be no 18-month waiters on the waiting list, has been delivered by the Government, as we said it would be.

The Prime Minister will know that many disabled people throughout the country, and their carers and relatives, are concerned about the benefit review that the Government are undertaking. Will he rule out today the possibility of taxing disability living allowance?

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform said when he announced our proposals to the House last week, we have no proposals to tax that benefit. Obviously, all taxation matters are matters for the Chancellor, but there are no such proposals in the Green Paper. I think that disability groups have welcomed the Green Paper, because they know that reform is necessary. They know, for example, that it is right to make changes to incapacity benefit and disability living allowance to make the gateways fairer, clearer and better, as well as trying to get more help to those who are severely disabled. They also welcome the fact that we shall consult them on how to proceed. That is the right way to make radical reforms, while reassuring people who need reassurance.

Has my right hon. Friend heard the rumour that the Conservatives may abandon their opposition to the national minimum wage, despite the fact that they kept the House up about it all night a few weeks ago? Does he not welcome their grudging conversion to one of Labour's big ideas?

Order. I remind Back Benchers that they should ask about Government policy at Question Time. The Prime Minister is responsible for Government policy, not for the activities of the Opposition. Mr. Quentin Davies.

When and where did the Prime Minister last meet Mr. Rupert Murdoch?

As I said earlier, I meet newspaper proprietors, all of them, regularly, and I shall carry on doing so—as, I have no doubt, every serious political leader does.

May I congratulate— [Laughter.] April fools!

When does the Prime Minister expect to conclude the talks with the Confederation of British Industry about the vexed problem of trade union recognition rights and voting by a simple majority? Is he aware that, the way that they are going on, they will probably take longer than the Northern Ireland peace agreement? Does he accept that, when the political history of this century is written, the workers' struggles will spring from every page, whereas the CBI and the media moguls will finish up with a footnote in the appendix?

I have to say that that is not quite the new Labour authorised version.

Obviously, we are in a process of consultation, because the issue is important. In the manifesto we stated that trade union recognition would be given if a majority of the relevant work force wanted it. We said that in government we would consult and negotiate on what that meant, and that is precisely what we have done. It is important to strike the right balance between the right of an individual to be part of a union and to be represented by it, if that is what the individual wishes, and the need of an employer to run an effective business, and that is precisely what we will do. The introduction of the minimum wage now has considerable business support, and I want the other part of our fairness at work agenda to be implemented in the same way.

I understand that the Prime Minister has been busy launching Panel 2000, which is about rebranding the UK. What contribution does he think that the Foreign Secretary has made to promoting our image abroad?

The Foreign Secretary has done an immense amount for British business abroad. It is only a pity that, when he does so, he is attacked and undermined by Opposition Members. I believe that the Foreign Secretary's job is not only to promote business, but to stand up and do what is right—that is what he has done.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that last night, thanks to the hereditary peers, the Government suffered their 18th defeat in the House of Lords. There is growing impatience among Labour Members about when we will reform the House of Lords and get rid of these historical throw-backs and hill-billy inbreds. Can my right hon. Friend ascertain whether the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) shares our view on the House of Lords, or whether—on this, as on every other issue—he is still thinking about it?

We will of course proceed as soon as we can in reforming the House of Lords. It would be easier if we knew that we had the Opposition's support in doing so, but, as on so many other policies, their position remains completely shrouded in mystery. We keep saying to them that, if they will agree with us, we can remove the hereditary peers as quickly as possible, but they simply will not state what their position is.

Has the Prime Minister seen the figures that were produced by the House of Commons Library showing that, over the 18 years of Conservative Government, national health service spending rose by 3 per cent. a year, and that next year it will rise by 2.2 per cent? Are those figures correct?

I am delighted that my earlier remarks have had such a swift effect on the right hon. Gentleman. The figures indeed show that to be the case over the 18 years, but in the two years before the election—during which he was a member of the Government—national health spending rose in real terms by less than 2 per cent. This Government have significantly improved on that.

The truth, then, is that this Government are not matching the previous Government's performance in increasing NHS spending. All that the Prime Minister has done is to do what all Governments have done—take money from the contingency reserve for the health budget, except that he has not been as generous as previous Governments. Will he acknowledge that, under his spending plans, the increase in spending is now less than it was under Conservative Governments over those 18 years?

No, I certainly will not agree with that, as it is plainly wrong. First, we are putting far more money into the NHS—now, more than £1.7 billion—than was proposed in the Conservative spending plans that were published before the election. Secondly, even this year, we are spending far more— more than £300 million—than the Conservatives were due to spend, and that money does not come from the contingency reserve. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count.

The Prime Minister's answer bore so little resemblance to the truth that he could probably get a job in his own press office before long. He promised the British people so much on health: he promised to reduce waiting lists, but they are now bigger; he promised to increase spending on the NHS, but the Government have cut growth in spending; and he promised to keep open specific hospitals, but the Secretary of State for Health has been busy closing them. Is that not a step-by-step betrayal of the NHS?

What a cheek, honestly. We are spending more money—[Interruption.]—far more money, than the Conservatives would have spent, according to their spending plans published before the general election. Waiting lists were going up for two years while the right hon. Gentleman sat in the Cabinet doing nothing about it, and they will come down under Labour, as we promised. The British people know perfectly well that the Conservative party in government did everything that it could to undermine the national health service. The Labour Government not only are spending more money but have got rid of the internal market and will put the national health service back on its feet, as we promised.

Today marks a new beginning for the Medway towns: 250,000 people in the largest conurbation in the south-east will have a new unitary authority, dedicated to better education and economic regeneration. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing that council success, on behalf of the people of Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham?

Yes, I have no doubt that the new plans will do an awful lot for the people in my hon. Friend's area, not only in education but in economic development.

Will the Prime Minister confirm the front-page report in today's The Times about an extra £3 billion for the national health service? Is so, will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Health intervenes to halt the closure of four Cornish hospitals, with the loss of up to 100 beds and the sacking of 300 nurses?

Obviously, I cannot confirm reports of spending figures that are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I repeat: we are putting into the national health service far more money than not only the Conservatives but the Liberal Democrats were prepared to put into it.

The decision on the particular hospitals lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but it is fair to point out that the chief executive of the local health authority has said that the changes are being made not for cash reasons but for reasons of internal reform. That said, my right hon. Friend will consider in detail the points that are being made, and he will announce his decision in the normal way.

Jobs paying £1.75 an hour have recently been advertised in my constituency. Research has shown that subsidies for such poor employers cost the taxpayer up to £7,000 a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative opposition to a minimum wage is wrong morally and economically and that his policies have the support of the vast majority of people?

One reason for a minimum wage is to reduce the benefit bill, running at £3 billion or more a year, which goes on subsidising low pay. Another reason is that it is better for employers to compete on the basis of skills and productivity, not lower pay. It is morally right that there is a threshold beneath which wages do not fall. I very much hope that, despite anything that the Conservatives have said in the past, they will join us in supporting a policy that is both economically and morally right.

What plans he has to pay an official visit to Essex.

I am afraid that I have no plans to do so at the moment.

That is a big disappointment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I should have liked the Prime Minister to meet some of the staff of various training centres in Essex, who as of today have lost their jobs because the funding given to Essex county council is insufficient. For those people, some of whom have been there for 20 years, that is not so much welfare to work as work to welfare.

Does the Prime Minister agree that all parties on Essex county council—Labour being the largest—would have liked to keep the centres going, but that closure was the inevitable consequence of the previous Government's underfunding of local government? Does he further agree that, if the present Government had funded local government properly, those jobs could have been saved?

I hope that, as his hon. Friends cheered him, the hon. Gentleman will not mind my pointing out the fact that the Liberal Democrat manifesto made it quite clear that his party was also pledged to keeping within the spending limits on local government. That point needs to be made.

The particular training centre to which the hon. Gentleman referred is the SEAX training centre. The decision to close it was made by a committee chaired by a Liberal Democrat. The reason why work under the welfare-to-work programme was not given to that centre was that it was due to close, but other activities that are funded under the welfare-to-work programme will directly benefit his constituents.

May I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome the new deal initiative is to the people of Harwich, one of the unemployment black spots of Essex? Does he agree that it is nice to see the Liberal Democrats and Tories of Essex joining in and supporting the new deal for the Essex people? The people of Harwich have suffered 8 or 9 per cent. unemployment for the past few years. It is right that Opposition Members should notice that they were wrong not to vote for the new deal—

Order. I urge Back Benchers to put a question to the Prime Minister and not make a statement.

The new deal has resulted in more than 1,000 young people getting into work in different parts of the country. That is just in its initial stages. It is important because these youngsters are often being given the first chance to get a job in their lives. It will reduce the cost to the state and will give them opportunities. It is a £3.5 billion programme, funded by the windfall tax. It is extremely important that we get the scheme going throughout the country, where it is generating enormous enthusiasm—and rightly so.

What plans he has to pay an official visit to the Vale of York.

I am afraid that I have no immediate plans to do so.

May I express the disappointment of the Vale of York that the Prime Minister has no immediate plans to visit us? We would impress on him the distress caused to farmers and to manufacturing industry by the Government's failure to tackle the strong pound. What would he say to those workers who have lost their jobs at Samsung this week and to those farmers losing their living because of the inability of his party to tackle the strong pound?

Let us be clear about what the hon. Lady means when she says that the Government

should tackle the strong pound. The only way of doing that would be to tighten the fiscal position of the Government even more than it has been tightened. The Government have tightened fiscal policy enormously, but that has been opposed every step of the way by the hon. Lady's party. If we had followed the policies outlined by the Conservative Opposition at the moment, we would have had a worse problem than we have. We would have had higher interest rates and our economy would have been deteriorating. As a result of the measures which we are taking, we have the best chance of avoiding the boom-and-bust scenario. It is vital that decisions in respect of the pound and economic policy are taken on a long-term and not a short-term basis, so that we never go back to Tory boom and bust.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern in all parties in the House about the latest developments in Cyprus? What action will the British Government take to get the Cyprus talks back on track?

It is an extremely difficult situation. Although we very much welcome the start of the accession negotiations with Cyprus, it will be far more difficult for the accession to take place properly within the context of a divided island. We have made sure that a settlement should not be a precondition of access, but we want the Turkish Cypriots to participate in the process. We are doing all that we can to make that happen and will continue to do so. In the end, we cannot make this work unless both parts of the island want to work together.

Will the Prime Minister give the same help to parents who stay at home to look after young children as he is giving to parents who go out to work and need help to afford child care?

What we will do, as we have done, is to raise child benefit substantially for that section of the population. We are raising child benefit for everybody, but it is important that those women who want to, and sometimes have to, work for their family income should be given help with child care. We need extended nursery provision and a tax credit for the cost of child care. That should be supported by the hon. Gentleman's party.

What would the Prime Minister say to those employers who have not yet signed up to the new deal about how they can contribute towards providing jobs for Britain's young people, who were abandoned and left to unemployment by the previous Government?

I would say, "Sign up," because the new deal offers opportunities not only for young people, but for employers. Employers will get highly motivated, well-trained staff coming to work for them, so it is good not only for young people, but for employers. I hope that they sign up to it.

Will the Prime Minister confirm the view expressed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland last week, that a referendum will be held in Northern Ireland only if agreement is reached by the political parties in the present talks? Will he also confirm that the supreme authority of this Parliament over all persons and matters in Northern Ireland will remain undiminished?

Of course any agreement that is reached, and the referendum on it, will have to be agreed and will have to pass through the House as the sovereign body. That is absolutely clear. The position in respect of the referendum, and the arrangements for it and for the talks process, which we outlined at the beginning of the process, remains in being. I urge the hon. Gentleman and others like him to help constructively in reaching a deal and a negotiated settlement. We have the chance to do that in Northern Ireland—an historic opportunity has come in this generation, but it may not come in future generations. Rather than shake his head, the hon. Gentleman should help us to get to where the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland want to be.