What representations he has received regarding hospital waiting lists in Wales. [37999]

Other than in respect of individual cases, none. Reducing the time people have to wait for treatment remains a priority for the Government. The additional £25 million for waiting lists announced in the Budget will be targeted at reducing lists to below the levels applying when we took office.

Bearing in mind his reply, will the Minister explain to the House today why, according to his statistics given in answer to a question on 23 March, waiting lists in Wales have increased by 3,000 since the Labour party came to office? What additional resources and new money is the Minister able to put at the disposal of the health service in Wales in order to reduce waiting lists and meet the pledge that Labour made at the election one year ago?

Quite simply, the £25 million that was announced in the Budget in March was made available specifically to deal with the fact that waiting lists in Wales are growing. The hon. Lady may be aware that admission rates in Wales are 11 per cent. higher than those in England because of the poorer health of the Welsh people. In the longer term, we are planning to tackle more fundamental issues to ensure that the people of Wales become healthier.

As to the future of hospitals, is the Minister aware that hardly an individual or organisation in north Gwent supports his proposed reconfiguration of NHS trusts? Is the Minister willing to recognise that Blaenau Gwent has some of the worst health problems not just in Wales, but in the United Kingdom, and that we should be accorded trust status like that which he has granted, quite correctly, to Cynon Valley?

My hon. Friend will know that we are committed to ensuring that Blaenau Gwent, like other parts of Wales, gets a better health service as a result of our trust reconfiguration exercise. One purpose of that exercise is to ensure that money previously spent on administration can be spent directly on patient care. My main concern is that the proposals for Gwent will show where the benefits lie for all people in Gwent—especially those with the poorest health, such as my hon. Friend's constituents.

Is the Minister not being dreadfully complacent about the health of the people of Wales? He responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) by saying that admission rates were 11 per cent. higher in Wales than in England because of the poorer health of the Welsh people. On 5 February, a Green Paper addressing the health of the people of England was published, and another Green Paper was released dealing with the health of people in Scotland, yet we still await the publication of a Green Paper addressing the health needs of the people of Wales. Is it not about time that the Government began to direct their attention towards the health of the people of Wales? Can the Minister tell the House this afternoon when we can expect the publication of that Green Paper?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have the legacy of 18 years of Tory rule to overcome. We made £9.5 million available to deal with winter emergencies, which went extremely well in Wales, and, since then, we have provided another £25 million more than his Government wanted to provide. The Green Paper will appear before the next Welsh questions.

If he will make a statement on the renegotiation of the European structural funds. [38000]

As Welsh gross domestic product per capita is extremely low by comparison with both the European Union and Great Britain averages, the Government believe that Wales is entitled to secure the maximum benefit from the structural funds after 1999.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that Wales does not lose out to other parts of Europe in the current negotiations on structural funds? Will he reaffirm to the House his determination to pursue GDP as the basis for reform, bearing in mind the fact that my constituency and a great proportion of Wales suffer some of the lowest incomes in Europe, particularly as a result of the failures of the previous Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend that Wales is one of the poorest regions of Europe, and that must be recognised in Brussels as it is recognised by the Government. The Welsh GDP per capita is just 80 per cent. of the European average, and the UK stands at 96 per cent. That indicates the leeway that we have to make up. With regard to my hon. Friend's constituency, Pembrokeshire's GDP per capita is extremely low, sitting at just 60 per cent. or so of the European average. We must get the aid from Brussels to which we believe we are entitled.

Does the Minister share my view that the period for regional funds between 1994 and 2004 is possibly the last for which Wales may get significant benefits from European funding? If that is the case, does he share my view that the responsibility of the Government and of all of us who represent seats in Wales is to press for objective 1 status for those parts of Wales that would qualify? If the Minister agrees, can he tell us when the application will go in and whether Eurostat has agreed the new NUTS 2—nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—areas for Wales?

I agree that this is a critical time for Wales to make sure that it gets the benefits to which I believe we are entitled under the structural funds review, because thereafter, enlargement will inevitably compress the availability of funds even to Wales. With that in mind, we have submitted a detailed and compelling case for west Wales and the valleys to the Office for National Statistics in order that Wales's case may be argued in the strongest terms.

To reinforce my hon. Friend's case, is he aware that the Cardiff business school estimates that in Merthyr, for example, GDP is only 67 per cent. of the European average and that in Blaenau Gwent, it is 62 per cent? Will he carry the message from the House and from Welsh Members to the European Commission that we will not tolerate the changes that are proposed and the destruction of European structural aid to communities such as ours?

I will certainly convey to all the appropriate authorities the fact that areas such as Merthyr and other valley constituencies, in common with west Wales constituencies and authorities, have very low levels of GDP per capita—some, like Merthyr's, standing at about 60 per cent. of the European average. That reveals the compelling nature of the case that the Government are advancing for Wales to receive objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys. There are such low levels of GDP that we need and are entitled to European structural funds to give those areas the support that they need.

Will the Minister give the House and the people of Wales a categorical assurance that the outcome of the negotiations on the European structural funds will be as good for Wales as that achieved by the previous Conservative Government—[Interruption.] It is a very simple question. If the outcome is not as good, will he undertake that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if they are both still in office then, will resign?

I wonder where the right hon. Gentleman has been for the past few years. It was under the previous Conservative Government that Wales lost out. The representations made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) dismally failed to present the case for Wales. An editorial in The Times this morning reads:

"The more immediate question is whether anything at all lurks inside the Conservative cranium."

Is my hon. Friend aware that when the structural funds were revisited previously under the Conservative Government, a senior civil servant in Brussels said that north Wales had the worst deal in the whole of Europe? Will my hon. Friend outline the measures that he is taking to ensure that north Wales, which includes the county of Conwy which has the lowest foreign inward investment level in Europe, the lowest pay in the United Kingdom and the lowest gross domestic product levels in Wales, does not lose out again?

I fully understand the points that my hon. Friend is making, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Conwy (Mrs. Williams). The argument advanced on behalf of Conwy and Denbighshire is very strong. That is why we have included both areas within the claim that we are making for recognition for NUTS 2—nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—status for west Wales and the valleys. My hon. Friend presents a strong argument that north-west Wales has lost out progressively over the past 18 years of dismal Conservative Governments. That is what has strengthened the region's case for support from Brussels.

We shall wait and see.

The right hon. Gentleman says that we shall wait and see. We are pressing Wales's case extremely hard and the Government recognise that it is extremely powerful.

What meetings he has had recently with farmers' representatives to discuss problems in Welsh farming. [38001]

Since taking office, I have met farmers' representatives on 15 formal and countless informal occasions to discuss the problems facing Welsh agriculture.

The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that the Welsh Grand Committee next meets in Carmarthen on 5 May to discuss the rural economy in Wales. I am making arrangements for the representatives of the three farming organisations in Wales to present evidence to hon. Members prior to the sitting of the Committee. Such an innovative procedure will, I believe, help to inform the Welsh Grand Committee's debate on this crucial issue and demonstrates this Government's commitment to an open and inclusive approach.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will accept my invitation to be present on that occasion.

Is the Secretary of State aware that farmers at that meeting are likely to raise the report produced by Professor Peter Midmore on the particular importance of upland livestock compensatory amounts to Welsh farmers? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the sentiments of that report, which are that a consistent and realistic level of support is essential to maintain agriculture on the hills of Wales? Does he also agree that, last year, the Government failed abysmally to meet those expectations? What will he do in subsequent years to ensure that he fulfils his own claims that the Labour party is the party of the rural economy?

I am familiar with Professor Midmore's report. In fact, I met Professor Midmore a couple of weeks ago to discuss it in detail. I am pleased to say that he and I had an amicable discussion and agreed on the best way forward for Welsh agriculture.

The right hon. Gentleman was, I believe, a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from 1989 to 1993. If there is any one crisis hanging over British agriculture, it is the spectre of BSE, which brought a once-great industry to its knees. It has cost British taxpayers about £3.5 billion. The right hon. Gentleman was the Minister who, above all else, characterised the then Government's inept handling of BSE by his own incompetence and complacency.

Will my right hon. Friend inform us what progress is being made in getting the beef export ban lifted in Europe?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. I know that he has made many representations to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He will know that many representations have been made at a European level. We were successful several weeks ago in getting the Irish scheme off the ground. That will be of great assistance to exporters from Ireland and, I believe, prove to be the crucial breakthrough in our discussions at a European level.

My hon. Friend will know that we have successfully introduced the passporting scheme and that the Government, rather than individual producers, are footing the bill for it. I have no doubt that that scheme will forward our efforts to remove the beef ban. I assure my hon. Friend that if the previous Government had been more constructive in their approach to Europe, we should not have had such difficulties over the past 12 months in reassuring our European Union partners that we want to work with them in a spirit of co-operation to complete the central objective of our policy, which is the removal of the beef ban.

I welcome the fact that the farming unions will give evidence to the Welsh Grand Committee in a few weeks' time. What will be the Secretary of State's answer when he is asked why there has been a cut of £80 million from forthcoming agricultural spending in Wales?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, he is referring to the expenditure report that was produced several weeks ago. If he looks at it carefully, he will see that last year's expenditure was inflated by a one-off payment to the upland areas of Wales. That, together with the increase that was made available as part of the beef compensation package, has not yet been included in next year's expenditure. The other element of the equation is the sheep special payment which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, depends on market prices. It is a compensation payment and at this stage, it is not possible to calculate what it will be. The Government's total approach to agriculture shows that we have a real commitment, and that is demonstrated by our discussions in Europe, by our commitment to pay additional compensation to relieve the present crisis in the livestock industry and by the way in which we are promoting other initiatives, such as the agri-environmental scheme and our various food promotion schemes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that in the debate, the Government will be able to demonstrate that we recognise the real crisis in the Welsh countryside. We are doing what we can in a practical way to help to ameliorate those difficulties.

In relation to the invitation to the Welsh Grand Committee to which the Secretary of State referred, may I say that I first received it through the offices of the press, secondly by fax and lastly by letter? If he checks his fax machine on his return to his office he will find an answer. Does he not agree that, as a result of reduced Government support, falling prices and the high value of the green pound, which has been brought about by five interest rate rises since the election, farm incomes in Wales are dropping catastrophically, by as much as 60 per cent. in some cases? Does he not realise the scale of the crisis for farmers and their families, and for the Welsh rural economy? When will he and the Government stop mouthing complacent platitudes and playing design games with the Welsh flag and do something real for the farmers of Wales?

If the right hon. Gentleman reflects, he will realise that he is putting an unusual proposition. It is that in our period in office of less than 12 months, we should have been able to resolve all the difficulties over which he and his colleagues presided in government for 18 years. It is not possible to turn around those difficulties in less than 12 months. I acknowledge, as I have always acknowledged, the difficulties that face all those who live and work in rural Wales. That is why we are striving to put in place the long-term mechanisms that are necessary to deal with those problems. I commend the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru for ensuring a proper debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. The constructive way in which those two parties are viewing events in Wales is markedly different from the mindless opposition of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

If he will set up health action zones in Wales. [38002]

The inequalities in health status in Wales are a major concern, and action across a broad front is required. I shall publish a Green Paper shortly which will propose a range of new measures which take account of the circumstances in Wales. In England, health action zones will cover populations of around 200,000. In Wales, it would not be appropriate to work on such a scale, but in our Green Paper, we will bring forward alternative proposals tailored to meet Welsh needs.

I am sure that that announcement will be welcomed in Wales as much as it was in England. It brings an holistic approach to poverty and deprivation in Wales as elsewhere. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that these matters will be given even greater consideration in the future Welsh assembly, especially if 50 per cent. of its membership are women.

We are very much aware of the health needs of Wales. My hon. Friend's constituency is an area of high need. I hope that our Green Paper will bring forward some fresh thinking on how to tackle these problems, and that the local health groups proposed in our White Paper will make a significant contribution by bringing together the health service and local government to think about health care issues.

How does the Minister expect to be able to save money by reducing bureaucracy in the health service in Wales when measures such as health action zones will create more bureaucracy, not less?

The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to my answer. I said specifically that we would bring forward proposals tailored to meet Welsh needs. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the thrust of our proposals in Wales is to reduce bureaucracy and administration, and to use that money in patient care. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, we reckon to save £50 million.

What recent assessment he has made of the cetacean population in Cardigan bay. [38003]

Recent studies indicate that the most common cetacean species in Cardigan bay are the harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin. Other species recorded are the common dolphin, Risso's dolphin, the white-sided dolphin and the killer pilot and minke whales.

Given the importance of the area to those various species, does the Minister agree that, given the June deadline, it is crucial that the Government make it a special area of conservation under the EU habitats directive?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the good news. We have already put forward a proposal for Cardigan bay to be a special area of conservation.

Is the Minister aware of any reported sightings of that other endangered species, namely, elected Tory Members of Parliament for Wales? Is he aware that there is a danger of that species being reintroduced to the native Welsh habitat following the elections in May to the National Assembly for Wales?

Although it is likely that in Wales they may become a land creature again, there is no possibility that they will end up in Cardigan bay. [Interruption.]

Order. A telephone is ringing.

What assessment he has made of the impact of Government policies on the employment prospects of the under-25s in Wales. [38004]

Under the new deal, modem apprenticeships and our planned national traineeships, young people in Wales now have the best opportunity in generations to get and keep a job.

Does the Minister regret the fact that the new deal has now been launched nationwide without sufficient time having been given to examine the experience in pathfinder areas such as that in Wales? Does the Minister agree with the Labour Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment who warned at a recent public hearing with the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights that, owing to the problem that new dealers might take away job opportunities from those already looking for work, after six months, "new deal" might become a dirty word on the street?

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been. The pathfinder experience in south-west Wales has been very good. We found 1,500 jobs pledged for youngsters who previously had no hope of a job. A total of 350 employers have given those pledges and there is a real prospect now of people being given opportunities when they never had them before. We are confident that 17,000 places on the new deal will be filled in the coming year and that will give a fantastic opportunity of a lifetime to people whom the Conservative party abandoned over 18 miserable years.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the manager of my local Employment Service who said that the new deal in Wales was the best scheme that he had ever seen in the 35 years that he had worked in the service? Will my hon. Friend comment on the number of people who are taking up the new deal in Wales and on the number of companies that are involved? When is the new deal likely to be extended to over-25s in Wales?

The new deal will be extended to over-25s in June. That will give them an opportunity from which young people throughout Wales now benefit by the thousand. The new deal is a very exciting programme for young people and businesses, and, for the first time in a generation, it gives Employment Service officials the opportunity to help people into work, rather than simply push them aside and off the claimant figures. The new deal is a unique combination of skills, high-quality training and high-quality job experience. That should be supported, not denigrated, by every hon. Member.

I wish the new deal well, but does the Minister accept that there are two prerequisites for it to succeed? The first is that there are long-term permanent jobs into which people can slot after having their training and going through the new deal. The second is that there is an adequate number of proper trainers, which is being undermined by the reduction in money that is available in Wales for training and enterprise councils. How will he ensure that those two requirements are met so that the new deal will succeed?

The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises specific points. The first issue is whether there is a permanent job at the end of the new deal programme. If the employability of those in Wales who are participating by the thousand in the new deal is increased, as it will be, their prospects of a job will be greatly enhanced. In addition, businesses in pathfinder areas that have taken on new deal participants find that the programme gives them opportunities to develop their businesses and thereby offer those individuals permanent jobs.

On training, we have injected additional resources through the new deal. That should make up any fall in overall provision through the TECs.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Liz Marsh of the Employment Service and Vale of Glamorgan council on the launch of new deal contracts last Friday, which will result in 160 under-25-year-olds getting jobs in my constituency? Will he join me in thanking the 73 employers who have expressed an interest in taking part in the new deal?

Yes, I will join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved in the Vale of Glamorgan and throughout Wales. Conservative Members should join us in ensuring that the new deal works. Labour Members, in common with some Opposition Members, are taking part in launches to get businesses involved and to ensure that the new deal is a success throughout the country. Conservative Members should be doing the same, rather than moaning and groaning about the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that this Government are giving young people.

What representations he has received regarding the decision to merge the Development Board for Rural Wales with the Welsh Development Agency.[38005]

I have received a large number of representations from hon. Members, organisations in mid-Wales and members of staff of the agencies, all of which underline the importance of the new agency's role in developing the rural economy. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the task of developing the rural economy will be a priority for the new organisation.

If the Secretary of State is so enthusiastic about devolution and an assembly for Wales, why has he decided to wind up the Development Board for Rural Wales, rather than give the assembly the opportunity to decide whether the DBRW should have a continuing role—given that there is every reason to have a body that is devoted to the particular and often acute needs of rural Wales?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that it was the people of Wales on 18 September who endorsed these plans. We spelled out our proposals for the merger of the Welsh Development Agency and the DBRW when we put those plans to the people in the referendum. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the House of Commons gave overwhelming support on Second Reading to the Bill that makes provision for the merger, and he will know that his party gave those plans tacit approval when it abstained on the Third Reading vote a couple of weeks ago.

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the debate last night in the other place, which gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. The report of that debate shows that there is broad support, across all the parties, for an essential programme that will be vital to the Government's task of modernising the British constitution.

Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)— who is making a good recovery following his accident—and I are very concerned that only one member of DBRW staff has been appointed to the powerhouse agency? It looks as though rural affairs will be dominated by Cardiff. Will he assure me that the expertise of more members will be used?

I have sent a card, on behalf of all at the Welsh Office, to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, and I look forward to his early return to Parliament. It was typical of the hon. Gentleman that he should spend his Easter in the daring way that resulted in his accident. I hope that he will be back with us shortly.

I assure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) that there will be a rural policy unit within the powerhouse agency, and that it will be based in the old DBRW area. I have no intention of allowing the new agency to ignore its responsibility for driving forward the rural economy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the rural policy unit will be not only based in the old DBRW area but staffed by people who understand the problems of the area. The unit will play a crucial role in influencing the attitude of the whole of the new powerhouse agency, bringing economic prosperity throughout Wales.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 April.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I will have further such meetings later today.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts in the cause of peace in both Ireland and the middle east. As he knows, there is a large and thriving Jewish community in Ilford, North. In the light of the 50th anniversary of Israeli independence, what are my right hon. Friend's hopes for the summit in London on 4 May and for the reinvigoration of the peace process and a real prospect of stability and security for Israel and her neighbours?

The present stalemate in the middle east process is obviously dangerous for those immediately concerned, for the region and for wider stability throughout the world. I am pleased that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Arafat have agreed to come to London for meetings on 4 May with the United States Secretary of State. I plan to meet both of them as well.

We will play any role that it is helpful for us to play, although I stress again that we should not cut across anything being done by the United States. I believe that, if there is good will on both sides, progress can be made

If progress is not made, the dispute will continue to threaten not only the stability of the middle east, but the stability of the entire world.

I want to take this first opportunity in Prime Minister's questions to welcome the agreement in Northern Ireland and to congratulate the Prime Minister on the role that he played in it. I also pay tribute to everyone who has shown courage and integrity in the search for peace. I reiterate the Opposition's support for the Government in the difficult job of turning the agreement into a lasting peace.

Against that background, will the Prime Minister give reassurance to those of us who are naturally uncomfortable with the early release of prisoners? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that before a terrorist prisoner is freed, it will be established that he does not pose a risk to the public? Will the right hon. Gentleman also assure us that, in the proposals for the Royal Ulster Constabulary—whose courage has been so great for so long—we can be confident that the integrity of policing in Northern Ireland will never be undermined?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and, indeed, for his offer that we campaign together in the referendum, which I welcome. I also pay tribute to the former Prime Minister for the work that he did in bringing about this settlement.

The right hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. First, I can confirm that prisoners who are a threat or who are attached to organisations that are carrying on violence will not be eligible for early release under this proposal. Those who are released are, in any event, released on licence, and that point must be well emphasised.

Secondly, in respect of policing, I again pay tribute to the work that the RUC has done. I emphasise absolutely that there is no intention whatever of having anything other than a police force that can carry out the work of policing. The desire is simply to make sure that it can do so with the support and active consent of all sides of the community in Northern Ireland. There is no question of having paramilitaries running around organising local police establishments, and so on. I am happy to lay those fears to rest and to assure people that the independent commission will look at all these things in the context of making sure that we have a successful police service for all the community in future.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. Naturally, we are also concerned that no decommissioning of terrorist weapons took place in the run-up to the agreement. I welcome the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in a letter to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that no Member of the New Assembly will be appointed a Minister until any paramilitary associates that he may have had have engaged in substantial decommissioning. Is the Prime Minister happy to reaffirm that reassurance today?

Yes. We said that we want the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. The agreement provides for the process to start immediately and, indeed, to be completed within two years. Meanwhile, it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations held Executive office in the assembly while they continued to be engaged in or to threaten terrorism. It is precisely for that reason that the agreement provides that those Members of the Assembly can be excluded or removed from office if they fail to live up to their commitments. We have made it clear that we will keep these provisions under review and strengthen them if necessary.

While again welcoming the Prime Minister's reply and accepting that this undertaking cannot be given effect under the heads of agreement, may I ask whether he will consider incorporating the undertaking in the legislation setting up the assembly, which is to be introduced later this year? Such an intention would again have the very strong support of the Opposition.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. We made it clear in the letter that I wrote to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that if, over the first six months or so, these provisions are shown to be ineffective, we shall support changes to give them real teeth. The way to do that is obviously a matter for consideration, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the necessity for people to be sure that those who hold Executive office in the assembly are genuinely committed to peace. If they are not genuinely committed to peace, it will be very difficult for people to work with them in any event, but it is important that we have that clearly established right at the very beginning.

Once again, I pay tribute to the courage of the leader of the Ulster Unionists in particular in the work that he has done to bring about this agreement. We have an agreement that in the end can work only if all parties decide to make it work. There is a limit to what we can do, in the House or elsewhere, if people are not genuinely committed to a package that is balanced and sensible and based on principled work. I believe that we have such a package. We have designed the structure, as it were, for peace, but now people have to get on and build it.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative and on managing to get the Israeli Prime Minister and the Palestinian President to come to London to restart the peace talks? The best prize that those who want to support Israel can give Israel and the Palestinians is an arena in which they can talk to each other as a means of moving towards a resolution of the problems between the two countries. The reward for Israel is peace with all its Arab neighbours; will not that reward come about only with the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the Israeli state in that area?

As I said a couple of days ago, the final status talks will examine what it means to give the Palestinians self-determination, in which statehood is an option. Many people in Israel are discussing that. Progress is possible, but interim issues—not just economic issues but the issue of redeployment—have to be resolved as quickly as possible to allow the final status talks to get under way. We shall certainly do everything that we can to facilitate that.

The world economic competitiveness league tables published today show Britain once again near the bottom of the world league tables for education. Does the Prime Minister think that the position will be improved by forcing schools to sack more teachers and having class sizes at a 20-year high and rising?

It is precisely because we realise the link between education and competitiveness that we are putting so much more money into education. Not only are we putting in extra resources this year in respect of current spending, but we are putting extra resources into the school building programme and technology for schools. In each case, we are putting in more than the right hon. Gentleman's party ever asked for before the election.

Of course we know the Prime Minister's familiar claims about the money that the Government are putting into education and health. Frankly, they require a degree of economic manipulation that would make Arthur Daley blush. Let me turn from inputs to outputs and ask the Prime Minister a very simple question: does he really believe that those who voted Labour last year to improve the quality of their child's education seriously expected their child's school to have to sack another teacher this year or for their child to be educated in a class that was too large under the Tories, but is getting larger under Labour?

They expected us to keep our commitments, and we are doing that. We are not merely putting additional money into education; we also got rid of the nursery voucher scheme and replaced it with proper nursery education. We are putting more money into the school building programme than any Government have ever done and we are also ensuring that schools get the help that they need with new technology. Of course it will take time, but it is utterly irresponsible for Liberal Democrats to say that all the problems not just in local government but in respect of the national health service, education, pensions and the environment can be tackled by a possible 1p extra that they may or may not put into the education system. It really is not a serious way of conducting politics and I believe that the public know it.

In view of the devastating losses suffered by people in Northampton and elsewhere in the midlands during the Easter floods, including the loss of life, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give people in Northampton and the midlands that lessons will be learned, especially in relation to early warning systems, flood defences, planning issues and the pressing financial needs of people who lost everything during the floods?

Yes, I can give that assurance. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already said that local authorities and others facing extraordinary claims as a result of the flooding can make claims under the so-called Bellwin scheme and they will be considered very sympathetically. May I take this opportunity, as I am sure my hon. Friend would wish me to do so, to pay tribute to all the emergency services who worked so hard and well to cope with the emergency that existed?

Is the Prime Minister aware that, when Cherwell district council was Conservative controlled, the district council precept for band D council tax was just £1? Now, after three years of Labour control, it is a staggering £55, with no improvement whatever in services. Given what Labour has done to Oxfordshire county council this year—the average council tax will be £100 more than it was two years ago—with a double-digit increase in council tax bills at the same time as cuts in social services and education, does the Prime Minister find it surprising that in a number of wards in my constituency the Labour party is not daring to put up candidates for the local government elections on 7 May?

I think that it was unwise of the hon. Gentleman to raise his last point, as, throughout the country, the Conservatives are failing to put up candidates in more than double the seats than is the case for the Labour party. He will be aware that the average council tax is lower in Labour areas than in Conservative areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in contrast to what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, there is widespread delight in the south-west at the extra Government money for schools, including brand new schools in my constituency and in Torridge and West Devon? That is after waiting 50 years during which the Tories did nothing.

In the autumn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ruled out the United Kingdom's joining the single currency before the next election except in unforeseen circumstances. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the artificial strength of the pound, possibly for the next couple of years, could represent those unforeseen circumstances?

I agree entirely with the first part of the question. On the second part, I believe that the decision whether to join the euro must be part of a longer-term process than the fluctuations in the market value of the pound. Two thirds of the appreciation of the pound happened before May last year. Boom and bust, however, would be the worst possible outcome for industry, manufacturers and others. It is essential that we take the measures both to cure the Budget deficit that we inherited and to ensure monetary stability over the long term. We have done that, which is one reason why long-term interest rates are now below the level that we inherited last May.

I must warn the Prime Minister that this question is not answerable with the term "boom or bust" anywhere in the text. When will he extend the clemency that, at his instructions or with his consent, has been granted to murderers and terrorists in Northern Ireland, who have been released from long prison sentences, to British service men, who, believing themselves to be either defending their comrades in arms or acting in the service of the Crown, remain in prison?

As the Secretary of State said on Monday, we are considering the cases of the two people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. I believe that what we have put forward on prisoners is right and justifiable as part of the wider deal and package. As we made clear, there is no question of allowing anyone out, even on licence, unless we are satisfied that that person does not pose a threat to security or safety.

In connection with the middle east peace summit in London, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in seeking to reopen the Oslo peace process and to regain the trust of the Palestinian people, it is crucial that the Israeli Government give firm assurances that they will desist from the policy of building and expanding the illegal settlements?

Again, as I said yesterday, it is important that there is time out on unilateral actions, including settlements. It is now essential that we reach the point at which, on 4 May, we see exactly what the differences are on these interim agreements, which cover the range of issues, and then, as soon as they are resolved, proceed to the final status talks. In the end, that will be the only way—in respect of settlements or anything else—in which we can provide stability in the middle east in the long term.

Although it would be churlish, Prime Minister, not to wish you well in your efforts for peace in Northern Ireland, despite one's reservations about their success, perhaps you—not only as Prime Minister, but as a lawyer—will answer the following points. First, is it open to one party to a multiple agreement unilaterally to give assurances about the agreement's alteration, whether on decommissioning, the review of the police or the release of prisoners? Secondly, are you aware—

Order. The hon. and learned Member should say, "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware".

I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Sinn Fein will claim that it is a political party with a mandate and that it is not the IRA and does not possess any weapons? Any suggestion that it should be expelled either from the assembly or from office will meet the same response that was given in relation to entry to the talks: "We are not the IRA."

Of course I am aware that that is Sinn Fein's claim. It is precisely because of our position on that issue that it was expelled from the talks for a time, as were loyalist political organisations attached to paramilitary groups. I made it clear, and I make it clear again now, that we will support changes if the existing provisions are not working properly, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that the package, because it is based on principle, offers the chance of a way forward in Northern Ireland.

The principle is that the basis of consent is secured. There will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people there—that is, after all, the historical principle for which people who say that they support the hon. and learned Gentleman's position have been fighting for years and years and years—and that principle will be balanced by a proper recognition of nationalist identity and fair and equal treatment for all.

Anyone should be able to recommend that position to their people as a right, proper, fair way forward for the future; and it is the future that we should start addressing.

What efforts have the Government made to alleviate the economic crisis in south-east Asia, bearing in mind the fact that many thousands of workers in the United Kingdom are employed directly or indirectly by companies from that part of the world?

We are doing what we can. We are fully engaged in seeking global solutions to Asia's economic problems. We have been movers and motivators behind the International Monetary Fund package of help to some of the south-east Asian economies, which has produced greater stability, especially in Korea. We continue to work with those countries to produce that stability. The crisis in Asia will inevitably have a knock-on effect on all our economies, but we are doing what we can.

We recognise the fact that a large number of Scottish jobs are dependent on those Asian economies and we will use both the European Union and our position as chairman of the Group of Eight countries to try to improve the financial systems in south-east Asian economies. In the end, that will be our best guarantee that the problems can be ironed out and that they can resume the steady growth that benefits us all.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the judgment of the sheriff court in Selkirk that the beef-on-the-bone regulations are a manifest absurdity? Will he repeal this ridiculous ban?

No. The reason for the decision was the recommendation of the chief medical officer, who said:

"I strongly advise that it be done."

The judgment was based on a technicality and leave to appeal has been given. I do not think that it would be right to act against the representations of the chief medical officer.

It is no good hiding behind the chief medical officer. Ministers are paid to make judgments and to take responsibility for them. Is it not the truth that the regulations were drafted in haste and without proper consultation? The Institute of Trading Standards Administration says that the Government have left it to enforce the unenforceable. With a legal touch like that, it is no wonder the Prime Minister gave up the Bar for politics—unlike the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who sometimes gives up politics for the bar.

According to the judge, the Minister of Agriculture has destroyed the present system of meat distribution and undermined the Food Safety Act 1990 in one sentence. How much confidence does the Prime Minister now have in him?

What the right hon. Gentleman says about the judgment happens to be wrong. It was based on a technicality, and we have been given leave to appeal. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has always said, it is necessary for the ban to remain until the scientific and medical evidence shows that the threat is receding. In the light of the history of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with that—it would not be sensible to act contrary to the strong advice of the chief medical officer, which I quoted. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that it would be right, he is not acting responsibly.

I asked the Prime Minister about confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, and we have not heard much about that. The ban has been described by consumers as unnecessary, by retailers as ridiculous, by inspectors as unenforceable and now by judges as absurd. Is it not time that the Government exercised a bit of common sense and said that, in a free country, people should choose for themselves?

No. If I may correct the right hon. Gentleman: first, environmental officers have not said that they cannot enforce the ban and, secondly, the Consumers Association actually welcomed the decision on it; so he is wrong on both those counts. Thirdly, it is at least arguable—the inquiry will demonstrate this or not—that we are in this mess over BSE precisely because the previous Government failed to act, which has left us with a bill for BSE that is running to £2 billion a year. We are now having to engage in the difficult process of getting that ban lifted. The first part of it is under way in Northern Ireland and I very much hope that, in the next few weeks, we will get the rest of the ban lifted through the date-based scheme. It would not be sensible for us to act against the express advice of the chief medical officer. If the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member had acted a little more responsibly in the early years, we would perhaps not have faced the colossal mess in which the Conservative party put us and from which we are trying to extricate ourselves.

Does the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the new basis for calculating the unemployment statistics? Is that not giving us a true and honest picture of the jobless rate? Does he also agree that that is in stark contrast to the past 18 years, when there were 35 different methods of calculating the rate and the Tories continually fiddled the unemployment figures?

Fiddled figures—that brings back happy memories of all those press releases.

It is right that we should make the figures a sensible expression of true unemployment levels and it brings us into line with internationally accepted standards. I am delighted that the Office for National Statistics has done it; it is right and I support it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Christie hospital, which is the north-west of England's regional specialist centre for cancer treatment, is in the depths of a financial crisis and has had to close down a £1 million linear accelerator machine? Is he further aware that the national health service guidelines recommend that people receive radiotherapy in two weeks and that they are having to wait five? How does he square that with the priority that he says he is giving to cancer treatment and what is he going to do about it?

Perhaps, first, the hon. Gentleman could indicate by a nod of his head whether he supported the spending plans of the previous Conservative Government on the health service—[Interruption.] It is hardly surprising that the hon. Gentleman will not tell us. The Government are putting in an extra £2 billion this year, over and above the money allocated by the previous Government. Obviously, it is important that we carry on making improvements as we can to the NHS, and we are spending far more on cancer treatment than the previous Government. I accept that there is a still a lot more to do, but let us be clear that what we are doing is clearing up what we inherited from 18 years of Conservative Government.

At a time when we are trying to encourage responsible citizenship, does the Prime Minister agree that it is also appropriate to support the nations that are trying to deal with any potential threat from the misuse of nuclear material? If we chose to sit on our hands or turn our faces away from the problem, as some people encourage us to do, it would not only set a dreadful example of citizenship but be a terrible betrayal of those other nations that are seeking to deal with that difficult problem.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. May I point out to the House two facts, which have been absent from some newspaper reports today? First, the total amount of intermediate waste that will be added to Dounreay is two drums-worth; 14,000 are already stored there. Secondly, it is quite wrong to say that the United Kingdom alone is taking action. The United States has already taken 350 kg of irradiated HEU.

Highly enriched uranium.

The United States has also taken 600 kg of unused highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan, and Russia has taken 137 kg from Iraq since the Gulf war. [Interruption.] Other European countries are making other contributions. That is why we thought it important to do what we did. As secrecy has been shouted about, I must point out, first, that we have followed the normal rules for transportation of civil nuclear fuel. Secondly, we could not, of course, make an announcement as such, because the reason for our action was the fear of rebels taking over the civil nuclear reactor again. Thirdly, we had already prepared a parliamentary answer, and we shall give full details the moment that the transportation has occurred, which is entirely in line with normal practice.

Is the Prime Minister willing to employ his boyish charm and that engaging smile—I want him to say yes—in talking to the French authorities, to sort them out and to ask them to agree to a fair deal for British fans for allocation of World cup tickets?

We are concerned about the situation. I gather that 10 million calls had been made to the French authorities by lunchtime. We are in touch with them about how we can improve both the allocation of World cup tickets and the system of allocation. I cannot offer an instant result, but I shall do my best to ensure that British fans are treated fairly and to improve the system for allocation of World cup tickets. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in hoping that, when fans get their tickets and go to the games, they will see victories for British teams.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Points of order come after questions, and I have a private notice question.