What initiatives have been taken to increase the number of United Kingdom companies operating routine drug-testing programmes. [75356]

The Government encourage individual employers to act in accordance with guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive, "Drug Misuse at Work", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

It is estimated that only about 10 per cent. of companies in the United Kingdom have drug-testing programmes. Will the Government therefore encourage, through organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors, a zero tolerance policy in regard to drugs in the workplace? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although drug testing is of course vital in the case of jobs to which safety is critical, it should be extended to more sectors to prevent deterioration in work performance, reduce damage to the health of employees and preserve the jobs and careers of those employees?

As I have said, the Government encourage employers to act on the HSE guidance, which was launched by the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator. As for a policy of zero tolerance, we shall continue to urge all employers to follow the guidance; but, ultimately, it is a matter for them. We have no plans to take statutory powers enabling us to insist that they do so.

If he will make a statement on the work of the better regulation task force. [75357]

The better regulation task force is providing valuable advice. So far, it has published five major reports, and it will publish a further four over the next three months.

Given that British companies are now expected to swim in a sea of regulation deeper and more hazardous than any that they previously have had to negotiate, and given that the British food industry alone now faces extra regulatory costs of £497 million imposed by the Government, will the Minister urge all his ministerial colleagues to study the United States Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996, and then to heed the lessons of that crucial legislation?

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has shown his ignorance of what is actually happening in government. He is obviously not aware of the work that is done not only by the better regulation task force, but by the better regulation unit—or of the work that we do to help businesses, small and large, by means of initiatives such as the access business initiative and the outstanding initiative announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which was designed to focus on the needs of small business.

Business—and, not least, his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen)—would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman gave some credit to the Government's attempts to support business, rather than denigrating them. They might even enlighten the hon. Gentleman about what business is actually doing, which bears no relation to his prejudiced view.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that the better regulation task force is doing. Last July, it published an excellent guidance document for Ministers, recommending eight weeks as the minimum period for consultation on Government regulations. Is my hon. Friend's section of the Cabinet Office monitoring whether that good advice is followed? I ask because, over the busy Christmas period, the Medicines Control Agency issued an important regulation, which is causing a good deal of controversy, called MLX 249. Last Wednesday, in an Adjournment debate, we were told that the MCA's consultation period was six to eight weeks.

We have issued guidance, and we are monitoring whether it is followed. I should add that it is advice, not prescriptive guidance. However, my hon. Friend's comments will be brought to the attention of the appropriate Minister.

What recent representations he has received concerning the forthcoming White Paper on the modernisation of government. [75358]

I have most recently had meetings with the Council of Civil Service Unions, the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council.

We have been waiting for that White Paper for some time. What is the real desire for so-called modernisation?

I can tell my hon. Friend.

I thank my hon. Friend.

There is a lot of talk about "modernising Britain", but what exactly does the Minister mean by that? Although we certainly appreciate that the civil service should be "joined up"—to use the terminology of the day—how will the establishment of regional development agencies impact on his own civil servants? No one has ever written to me about regional development agencies. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how many of his own constituents have written to him in the past 20 years asking for such agencies.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's question was on modernising government, or merely a little ramble. He will not have to wait very much longer for us to publish the White Paper; then he will see the answers for himself.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are RATs in the Rotherham council housing and council tax benefits office? Remote access terminals were installed last month and paid for by central Government, allowing council officers to track pensioners entitled to income support regardless of whether they claim support at the Benefits Agency. Does he agree that the next logical step would be to enable those council officers not only to monitor the progress of claims at the Benefits Agency, but to complete income support claims on behalf of those pensioners? Will he give some assurance that the White Paper on modernising government will consider exactly that type of joined-up government service delivery?

Yes, it will.

Are not the Government's claims to be a modern and effective Administration somewhat undermined by the repeated delays in publishing the White Paper on better government, which is now over a year late? Will he assure us that the wait will have been worth while? If one of the White Paper's themes is to be joined-up government and a more coherent approach to the needs of the individual, will that approach not be injured by devolution, and indeed by regional government, leading to the fragmentation of both policy and service provision—with different policies and different approaches at different levels? Will the Government's ill-thought-out constitutional provisions not pull in the opposite direction to better government?

It is difficult to know where the Opposition stand on devolution. I thought that the Conservative party in Scotland had now accepted that devolution was a reality, and that it would work for success in the Scottish Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman really should make it clear where he stands. Apparently, he has taken a different view on the issue from that of the Leader of the Opposition; but that is not new for Opposition Front Benchers, as so many of his colleagues take a different view.

The White Paper will be published soon. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it will be about making life better for people, not about the convenience of civil servants or making life easier for Ministers. Regional development agencies are about joining up government, not about dislocating it.

What assessment he has made of (a) the quality and (b) the independence of the advice the Government are receiving on genetically modified foods; and if he will make a statement. [75359]

Independent expert committees are in place to ensure that the Government receive the best possible scientific advice on those issues.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is an unhappy tradition of senior civil servants, on retirement, taking up posts with the very commercial interests on whose activities they were supposed to be advising the Government impartially. The example of Sir Walter Marshall and nuclear power springs to mind, but I expect that one could think of others. How confident is my right hon. Friend that some of those who are advising the Government on GM foods will not end up working for the very vested interests whose activities they are supposed to be impartially overseeing?

I was about to say that my hon. Friend's crystal ball was at least as good as mine, but, on reflection, history shows that his is much better than mine, because he has been able to see some things long before the rest of us. Of course, anyone retiring from the Government service has to abide by the rules laid down by the Cabinet Secretary. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be done in future.

My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to lay another ghost to rest. It is not true that the Government have reached or are seeking any secret deal with the industries on genetically modified foods or crops.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Conservative party has been keen for safe genetically modified foods to be allowed to be grown in the United Kingdom, but only after the proper tests have been carried out. Are the Government ready to admit that they made a monumental error in trying to go against the advice of an environmental committee to have a three-year moratorium on putting in commercial crops? Surely ignoring such advice is undermining people's trust in the Government and in science.

The hon. Gentleman is confused. The Government have not licensed any crops for commercial development in this country. The only genetically modified foods that are on sale in this country were licensed by the Government of which he was a supporter. The real policy is that we are moving to the farm and field testing of genetically modified crops. Only when we are satisfied with those tests will we move to the next stage.

I understand that a written answer is to be given this afternoon on the labelling of genetically modified foods. Did the Minister see the comments on Monday last week of Professor Philip James of the Rowett research institute to the Select Committee on Science and Technology that the issue of labelling would prove to be irrelevant because it was increasingly difficult to guarantee the segregation of genetically modified ingredients? Would the Minister care to comment?

I do not agree with Professor James on that issue. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has published a list of companies able to provide non-genetically modified products. As Sainsbury's and others have made clear today, supermarkets are moving to ensure that their own brand products do not contain genetically modified ingredients. The Government are determined to press ahead with clear labelling of food products so that the consumer has a real choice, in contrast with the policy of the previous Government, who steadfastly refused to label foods to help the consumer in that way.

What mechanisms are available for consulting the public about specific Government initiatives. [75360]

If he will make a statement on the ways in which the Government consult the public about new initiatives. [75361]

The Government use many mechanisms, including written consultation exercises, citizens panels and qualitative research, to consult the public about specific initiatives.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I have always believed that good government requires good listening skills. My constituents appreciate the opportunities to discuss and be consulted on Government initiatives. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to explain what the Government will do with the results of the consultation exercise and how that feeds into policy deliberations? Does he agree that the fact that the Government listen explains why they are popular and why the Tories are in opposition?

On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, he is self-evidently speaking good sense. As for the first part, we shall place the results of the research in the public domain—unlike the practice of the previous Government. The aim of gathering the information is to inform debate objectively so that we have evidence-based policy making.

I thank my hon. Friend for outlining the methods that he is using to consult the public. Will he consider the model of consensus conferences, which have been used in Denmark and the Netherlands to consult the public on the ethical and social aspects of science policy? Is he aware that consensus conferences have been run in this country—in 1994, on plant biotechnology—and produced some sensible recommendations, which, unfortunately, were not taken up by the previous Government?

Given the overwhelming consensus behind the Government's initiatives, I can do no more than agree with my hon. Friend.

By this time last year, the Government had set up 179 review bodies—after only nine months of government. After 18 months of government, the figure had grown to 224. When will the Government turn this year into the year of delivery, as they promised at the beginning of January?

The £19 billion on education, the £21 billion on the health service and the other measures revealed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement answer the hon. Gentleman's question effectively.

How many millions of pounds are the Government spending on focus groups and people's panels? Does the Minister agree that the people would far prefer to see that money being spent on services for the people, rather than on eliciting information to try to help the Government win the next election?

It is a mere drop in the ocean, given the £330 billion that the Government spend overall. It is well worth spending that money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] "Refer to previous parliamentary answers" is my advice to Conservative Members. Informed policy making will be in marked contradistinction to what happened during 18 years of misrule by the Conservative party.

What proposals he has for future use of the people's panel. [75363]

My Department plans to use the people's panel to carry out two further waves of quantitative research this year. The panel is also used by other Departments for various quantitative and qualitative research.

May I suggest that my hon. Friend ask the people's panel to consider the Government's Budget priorities? In particular, will he ask whether the panel would rather see the doubling of support for children, or the freezing of child benefit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—whether the panel would rather see £100 support for fuel payments for all pensioner households, or an increase on VAT on fuel—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and whether the panel believes that £40 billion extra spending on schools and hospitals is important, or reckless spending, as the Opposition believe?

Although I admire the motivation behind my hon. Friend's question, the answer comes via the popular acclamation for the points that she raised.

After that cringingly nauseating question, may I ask whether the people's panel is the same as the citizens' panel, which sounds like an instrument of the French revolution? How much does it cost, how is it recruited and what are its three greatest achievements to date?

We have before us an expert in cringe. The panel, in itself, will not create something remarkable overnight, but it is a serious enterprise. Conservative Members should give credit to the fact that we are making sure that what people think—rather than what the top-down politicians think—is taken into account when the policy is formed. For the first time, we have evidence-based policy making that reflects what people want—not what politicians and civil servants think that they might want.

And what does it cost?

It costs, in net terms, very little to the taxpayer.

My hon. Friend will recall that, when the panel was established, it was agreed that all the research would be published, as has been done. Will he consider making more of the raw research available more quickly, which would certainly be more helpful to the Opposition in deciding what their policy should be?

We will certainly consider how to make more information available.

On which regulations he has recently received representations from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Confederation of British Industry. [75364]

The better regulation task force, supported by officials in the better regulation unit of the Cabinet Office, has received representations from those organisations in the course of the reviews on long-term care, enforcement and consumer affairs.

I am sorry that the unit has not received a representation from the Engineering Employers Federation about the difficulty that engineers are having in dealing with the implementation regulations for the wholly unnecessary and unwanted working time directive. The Minister may be aware that a 200-page document has had to be published to help them with that task, but engineers in Lancashire are still struggling with the complexities. I would be grateful for an assurance that he will dispatch an official from the better regulation task force to Lancashire straight away, to help the engineers with the task that the Government have imposed on them.

The right hon. Gentleman is slightly confused: the better regulation task force is independent of the Government, and it is not for me to dispatch its staff anywhere. I can more than meet his request, however, because—although I am sure that they have had consultations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—if members of the Engineering Employers Federation would like to talk to me about the matter, I would be happy to see them.

What assessment he has made of the introduction of new IT systems across government; and if he will make a statement. [75365]

Major information technology-related initiatives have been launched across government, including in the areas of education, social security, health and crime reduction. We will publish information in the early summer about progress towards the Prime Minister's 25 per cent. target.

My concern is that my hon. Friend inherited a situation in which several very large IT projects were under way—some of them delayed under the private finance initiative—and that there is not a sufficient drawing together of the different approaches to information technology in different Departments. Is there any role that the Cabinet Office could play in getting a unified IT strategy throughout government?

My hon. Friend should await the publication of the White Paper, in which she will find the answer to her question. She will be very pleasantly surprised by the initiatives that the Government are undertaking to tackle the problems which, as she rightly said, we inherited from the previous Government, with computer systems that were incompatible and did not speak to each other.

What has happened to electronic red boxes?

Quite simply, things have moved on since then: we now have an extremely effective Government secure intranet, and we are investigating other ways of providing all members of the Government with secure electronic communications.

In drawing up policy for access to information technology, will my hon. Friend remember the needs of disabled people, and especially those who need to use voice-activated equipment? Will he ensure that, consistent with last night's excellent presentation by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Trades Union Congress, those organisations are indeed consulted?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that the contents of the White Paper will reflect the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office for mainstreaming equal opportunities, in access to IT, as in other matters.

When he expects the Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification to complete its examination of the United Kingdom framework for overseeing the technology. [75367]

Officials have now completed the consultation stage of the examination of existing advice and control and will be reporting to Ministers shortly.

The right hon. Gentleman has already refuted extensive reports in Sunday newspapers that the Government have agreed a three-year moratorium on the planting of GM crops. Given the extent of those reports, was that just another spin-doctoring exercise? Given the recent announcement by the Sainsbury's group—an eclectic family if ever there were one—when will the Government accept the representations made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as long ago as 3 February that a three-year moratorium should be announced?

Let me make it clear that there is no secret deal between the Government and the industry in respect of genetically modified crops; nor has one been sought, and nor is any such deal under discussion. The Government are not offering any favours to the industry and I cannot make the position any clearer. We have no intention either of accepting the remarkably absurd suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that we should bring our bio-sciences and GM programmes to a complete halt with a universal moratorium.

If he will make a statement on the average length of service of civil servants within his Department. [75368]

On 1 March 1999, the average length of service of civil servants in the Cabinet Office, including both permanent and loaned staff, was 11 years and four months.

I am grateful for that answer. What assurances has the Minister's master given to the permanent secretary of his Department that there will be no repetition of the events that occurred when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when Mr. Neil Whitney, who worked in the Minister's private office, was sent to a gulag—the BSE department in Tolworth—for saying that it was improper of the Minister to order six bottles of Macallan malt for his private cabinet at the taxpayer's expense?

Apart from the fact that the hon. Gentleman's question is a load of rubbish, that is as far removed from the reality of the situation as it is possible to be, I can tell him that the Cabinet Office is a happy ship for all who work in it.

What targets he proposes to set for reducing the illegal use of drugs. [75369]

Under the Government's 10-year strategy, we aim to reduce young people's drug misuse, to reduce drug-related offending and access to drugs among young people, and to increase participation in drug treatment programmes.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is as unhappy as I am with that response. Until we can quantify what we are trying to do, we will not get real about the problem. I understand that targets cannot be plucked out of a hat. We must ensure that the numerical targets that are set are realistic and that we have the means to deliver them, but when will figures be added to what are widely accepted as good intentions?

Perhaps I had better make it clear to my hon. Friend that, if I had been unhappy with the response, I would not have given it in the first place. As for figures, we have a public service agreement in that area and we are currently putting together the first annual report of the UK drugs co-ordinator. We shall also examine the possibility of setting more specific targets in the future.

What extensions in the power and scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration his Department is proposing. [75370]

As I announced to the House on 10 February, the Government are seeking to extend the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to an additional 158 non-departmental public bodies. An order amending the list of bodies within the commissioner's jurisdiction was laid before the House on 22 February and came into force on 15 March.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which indicates that the Government's commitment to be more fully accountable to the people has been honoured by that move. However, one of the problems with many of the ombudsman schemes is that the screening process seems to prevent many genuine cases from being examined. Do we need to consider that point and ensure that the ombudsmen take up more of the cases submitted to them?

I am sympathetic to that point. We are determined to ensure that non-departmental bodies are open and accountable, and that they are as effective as we can possibly make them. It would be a natural extension of our determination to have more openness if we were to ensure that the ombudsman's work was as effective as possible, in the interests of consumers.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 March.

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

Since the Prime Minister claimed last week that taxes are set to fall next year, numerous economists, including Anatole Kaletsky in The Times, have described his comments as being completely false. Will he therefore accept the House of Commons Library's figures, which show a whopping £7.1 billion increase in taxes for next year? Does he agree that the public want less tax, not stealth tax? Will he promise to publish a list of all his stealth taxes and hidden taxes, entitled not "Your Financial Health Check", but "Your Financial Stealth Check"?

The public will remember the 22 Tory tax rises. We certainly do.

Let me refer the hon. Gentleman to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which published an analysis last week indicating that every single decile—every tenth of the population from the bottom right up to the top—gained as a result of the Budget. There will be a net tax cut next year of £4.5 billion, and direct taxes will be down by £9 billion.

Should not the outside police investigation into the foul murder of Rosemary Nelson be absolutely thorough and unhindered in any way? Since those who put that brave lawyer to death describe themselves as loyalists, should we not say without contradiction today that those murderers are traitors to everything that this country stands for?

My hon. Friend is right. No stone will be left unturned in the hunt for the killers, whose clear intent in murdering Mrs. Nelson was to stir up tensions in the local and wider communities and to attack the political process. The investigation by David Phillips, chief constable of Kent, will be independent—as my hon. Friend wishes—and he will be given every possible assistance by the RUC. The investigation's remit will be very wide.

Let us be clear about what the killers are trying to do. They are trying to wreck the hopes of peace for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. They are not loyal to anything other than their own bigotry and prejudice. That is not a loyalty shared by any sensible member of the United Kingdom.

I agree with the Prime Minister's last remarks.

Following the devastating report on the European Commission, may I ask the Prime Minister three specific questions? First, does he agree that the huge pay-offs involved should not apply—presumably they were never intended to apply—to Commissioners who are forced to resign in disgrace?

Secondly, does the Prime Minister agree that, in addition to procedural reforms, the Commission should do less, and do it better? Thirdly, is there any reason why we should not agree across the House that the appointment of new British Commissioners should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and the approval of the House?

It is interesting to reflect on the three points put to me by the right hon. Gentleman who had 18 years to act on them, but never did.

In respect of the pay-offs, if someone is guilty of fraud or misconduct, they will, of course, not apply. In respect of procedural reforms, I believe that the reforms that we set out yesterday, which were based on the findings of the committee of inquiry, and which would overhaul the whole financial management system, are the right reforms. I do not know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman believes the Commission should not do that it is doing at present.

In respect of parliamentary scrutiny, appointments are of course always subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but the system of appointment that has applied under successive Governments is the best system.

The right hon. Gentleman has not appointed Commissioners before and I have not been involved in such appointments. This is an opportunity to talk about the future, not the past. Is it not an opportunity to enhance the role of Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman has never missed an opportunity to diminish its role in the past two years. Can he not agree for once to expand it? People will listen to his lectures abroad more if reform starts here at home. Why should not a parliamentary Committee scrutinise the nominations for the European Commission?

Parliament is always entitled to scrutinise whatever it wishes. The right hon. Gentleman tries to say that the past 18 years were nothing to do with him. This is all part of the new campaign to say, "We were wrong. Everything that we did was wrong in those 18 years." However, the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Tory Cabinet. On the nomination of European Commissioners, he made his nomination on behalf of the Conservative party and, as far as I can recollect, his letter never once mentioned that it should be done differently.

I am telling the Prime Minister that we now have an opportunity to do things differently. His response—as ever—to the enhancement of the role of Parliament is utterly inadequate for Parliament and for the occasion. Will he also accept that it is of paramount importance to tell the Commissioners that they must do less? The report that we saw on Monday stated that the Commission was implementing policies over which it was exceedingly difficult to exert effective control and was pursuing highly expensive programmes that it could not manage. So, should not the Prime Minister stop signing up to the Commission doing more, as he has been doing with the employment chapter, the European social model and so forth, and say instead that real reform means doing less?

The theme of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention was less opportunity than opportunism. On the Commission doing less, the employment chapter is an attempt to move away from the regulatory model and was pioneered in part by this Government to do so. As for the other issues, the comments made by the former shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), and the former Prime Minister are worth investigating: that is, how we ensure that the Commission is held more properly to account. That is precisely what we are going to do, but we will do it better if we are working constructively in Europe in alliance with other countries, rather than indulging in the anti-European rhetoric that characterises the Conservative party today.

As a former Greenwich councillor and someone who has supported the millennium experience since before most people knew that there were two "n"s in "millennium", will my right hon. Friend confirm that the New Millennium Experience Company has succeeded in achieving its target for sponsorship for the dome? Will he also comment on the fact that the dome is becoming the internationally recognised symbol of the year 2000? Does that not demonstrate that it will be a resounding success, not merely for my borough, but for this country?

With the eyes of the world on us at midnight Greenwich mean time, it is entirely appropriate that we should celebrate the millennium in that way. We also believe that the resultant incoming tourism will benefit not merely London, but the whole country and will run to several billion pounds. Not a single penny piece of taxpayers' money will be used on the dome itself. We believe that the sponsorship target of £150 million will be met fully. I can announce today that schools will get maximum benefit from the dome at minimum cost. One million school children from schools throughout the United Kingdom will be able to visit the dome for no charge—10,000 schools will benefit.

In so far as the Brussels fiasco of the past few days was a scandal waiting to happen, is it not worth remembering that no Government in Europe were more responsible for the appointment of Mr. Santer and for resisting any expansion in the powers of the European Parliament to hold that Commission to account than the Conservative Government? [Interruption.] A little more quiet regret from this side of the channel would be most welcome.

What urgent steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that, following the welcome resignation of Mr. Santer today, the Commission is not left leaderless, Europe is not left incapacitated and the essential reforms—

Give him the job.

Order.

I assure hon. Members that it would be subject to scrutiny.

Will the Prime Minister ensure that Europe is not left incapacitated and that the essential reforms that are on the table for the Berlin summit are not indefinitely delayed?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Labour Members liked the idea, which is a good omen.

In respect of the two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, first, the reform package should be agreed as quickly as possible. Those reforms are far-reaching, but they are based on what the committee of inquiry revealed and we can put them into practice quickly. Secondly, we should get the new President and the new Commission in place as soon as possible, but we should ensure that we have the right person for President.

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Is it not clear that, just as we are embarked on the wholesale reform of Britain's political institutions, so we must now embark on the root-and-branch modernisation of Europe's institutions? Is it not also clear that, at the heart of that reform, there is now an unanswerable case for a new constitutional settlement for Europe which takes the powers of the European institutions and makes them clearly defined, clearly limited and clearly subject to full democratic accountability?

I confess that I am hesitant about trying to draw up a new constitution for the whole of Europe, and the right hon. Gentleman would find that other countries would also be hesitant. However, it is important that we consider the longer-term reforms that are going to bring about greater accountability between the people of Europe and the institutions of Europe. The European Parliament is obviously one avenue; the Council of Ministers is another; and the way in which national Parliaments interact with the European Parliament and the European institutions is another. At the conclusion of our presidency, we made a series of proposals at Cardiff and, although they were not taken up at the time, the time has now come to return to them.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the resignation of the European Commissioners will have no effect on the negotiations on objective l status for communities such as my own? Will he also make a statement about progress on matching funding from the Government if those negotiations are successful?

In respect of my hon. Friend's first point, I do not believe that the fact that the Commission has resigned should affect the efficacy of the Agenda 2000 negotiations; those negotiations are now firmly in the hands of the Council of Ministers and the Heads of Government meeting next week. On his second point on additionality or matching funding, the Government will have to consider that in due course.

In the tax year 2000, is a wife who stays at home to look after others worthy of a tax credit?

The working families tax credit will help precisely such a person—[Interruption.] The Tories complain about it now, but, the other day, they complained that we would give the tax credit to people whose incomes were at too high a level. Now, they are complaining about the opposite. The working families tax credit will help the very people about whom the hon. Lady is talking. If there is a family in which one member of a couple is an earner, that family will be better off as a result of the working families tax credit—some people will be better off by up to £20 a week.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the shocking statistics on child cruelty in Britain, where one child dies every week from abuse or neglect, and the chances of an infant aged less than 12 months being murdered are five times greater than for the rest of us? Does he know that the reason why the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children launched its "Cruelty to Children Must Stop, Full Stop" campaign in advertisements yesterday is that most of us prefer not to confront those horrible statistics? Can he assure us all that he will confront that horrible abuse and ensure that the Government do everything in their power to make Britain a safe place for children?

Two things are happening in that regard. First, the Protection of Children Bill, which the House should pass, will greatly improve the safety and protection of children. Secondly, the range of measures that we are taking to tackle social exclusion—such as poor housing and poor educational opportunities—and the sure start initiative for young people will strengthen our society and give hope to children who are presently without it.

The Red Book published with the Budget is full of references to the Government's desire to help business. Why do the Government then contradict that policy by introducing measures in the Budget that will increase taxes on business by £3.2 billion in the next three years?

We are cutting corporation tax for business. Under this Government, Britain will have the lowest corporation tax that we have ever had.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Jock Santer—[Interruption.] I have forgotten his name already, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Jacques Santer suspended the Dutch official who originally reported the European Commission to the European Parliament illustrates that, far from being whiter than white, he is irredeemably stained? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate the mass resignation of the Commission as a victory for democracy, and that the future of Europe lies with increasing democracy and financial transparency, and ending the era of "I'm all right, Jacques"?

I welcome the statement that Jacques Santer has made today. It is correct to point out that we have managed to get to the truth of the matter because the European Parliament decided to set up the committee of inquiry. That is a victory not just for the European Parliament, but for the forces of democracy.

When the Chancellor raised diesel duties by 12 per cent. last week, why did he not mention it in his speech?

The Chancellor specifically mentioned the fuel escalator in his speech.

The Chancellor made no reference whatsoever to the 12 per cent. increase in diesel duty. Is that not a further example of the misleading presentation of a dishonest Budget? Has the Prime Minister seen the widespread forecasts that 53,000 jobs will be lost in the haulage industry? The Budget foreshadowed the loss of 53,000 transport jobs while the Deputy Prime Minister—who has responsibility for transport—was chasing angel fish around a coral reef. The Prime Minister has claimed that business taxes are going down, and he has done so again today. After the Budget, the British Chambers of Commerce said:

"Business today is more heavily taxed and more heavily regulated",

and will be a total of £6 billion worse off each year than it was before the last election. Is it not time the Prime Minister had the guts to admit that that is the truth?

I certainly understand the problems of the road haulage industry as it has set them out. However, one group of people have no right to criticise this Government: the previous Conservative Government. Let me give the facts to the House. The price of derv has risen by 7p since the election, but it rose by 26p under the previous Government. It is true that duty has increased as a result of the fuel duty escalator, but the previous Government introduced the fuel duty escalator. The highest single rise in duty in the past 10 years occurred in 1995 under the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet.

To describe accurately the Prime Minister's answers about business taxation would be unparliamentary. The fact is that those duties have increased by 11 per cent. on average under this Government and by 7 per cent. in the last Parliament. The Prime Minister will not answer straightforward questions about diesel duty and about how much taxes have been increased by the last three Budgets because he does not want to admit that his party's commitment at the last election not to increase taxes at all was a total lie.

No, that is not correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have the facts if hon. Members want them. The last five rises by the right hon. Gentleman's Government were 10 per cent., 10 per cent., 13 per cent., 10 per cent. and 7 per cent. That averages a much higher figure than he is quoting. I also point out to him that this Government have frozen vehicle excise duty for 98 per cent. of lorries, and offered a £1,000 road tax discount for low-emission lorries and a £400 million subsidy in low-sulphur fuel discount. We have also cut corporation tax. In each of those areas, we stand in very good shape in any comparison with the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in this Chamber 50 years ago today, almost to the minute, a Labour Government introduced the Bill that became the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949? The first national park was the Peak District, and, of course, it is still the best. Will he agree that last week's announcement about a statutory right of access to the countryside is a fitting way to mark the 50th anniversary of that wonderful Bill?

My hon. Friend and I once did a photo opportunity together in High Peak, so his question brings back happy memories. I entirely agree that the announcement is a most fitting way to mark the 50th anniversary of that historic legislation, with a Bill that will open up access to people in a sensible and consensual way. Yet again, this party is standing up for the rights of ordinary people, in contrast to the Tory party, which is always standing up for the rights of privilege.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had the time today to reflect on his failure to answer the question put to him last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) about the £250 million that the self-employed will have to pay as a consequence of the Budget statement for the alignment of their national insurance contributions with those of employees? If he did not know about that consequence, surely he is not fit to be First Lord of the Treasury and, if he did know about it, he was demeaning his office because he should have shared that information with the House.

To give the hon. Gentleman the facts, we have cut the entry fee for national insurance contributions for the self-employed. They benefit, as everyone else does, from the cut in the basic standard rate of income tax. I know that Conservative Members do not like it, but, under this Government, the basic rate of tax, like that of corporation tax, is the lowest that it has ever been.

May I tell my right hon. Friend about the case of my constituent, 63-year-old Ted Dudley, whom I have been advising? His lungs are chock-a-block full of asbestos and he is fading away with mesothelioma cancer. He knows precisely when he came into contact with that asbestos. It was for a few months in 1954, when the brake linings on a machine that he was driving gave off the dust. It is probable that those brake linings were made with white asbestos. Will my right hon. Friend therefore take note of the Health and Safety Executive, which says that there is no safe working threshold for white asbestos and has approved the substitutes as safer than white asbestos? Will he support a unilateral ban on the importation into the UK of white asbestos and materials containing it?

I know that the case of my hon. Friend's constituent is not an isolated one, and, like those others, it is tragic. We shall, of course, reflect carefully on the points made by the Health and Safety Executive and my hon. Friend. We have continually said that, on white asbestos, we must proceed according to the scientific evidence, but we are well aware of the points that have been made by many campaigners, such as my hon. Friend, and we shall take careful account of them.

Does the Prime Minister consider himself a socialist?

I get asked some hard questions. The hon. Gentleman will like this answer. We redrafted clause IV so that the first line says:

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party."

Today is St. Patrick's day, the day that Irish people throughout the world like to celebrate. Many seek to return to the island of Ireland itself to engage in celebrations. There are some people, however, from Northern Ireland who have been placed in exile by paramilitary groups, who are not allowed to return for celebrations or for any other purposes. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the practice of paramilitaries and calling for an end to this activity? Would it not assist the peace process considerably if the paramilitary groups did that?

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says. There can be no justification for these so-called exile sentences; they are simply another form of terrorism. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the necessity to make sure that the peace process deals with all these various issues. The single greatest danger that Northern Ireland faces is that the will of the majority in the centre—the vast majority who want the process to succeed—will be pulled apart by the extremes. Whether it is the murder of Mrs. Nelson, exile sentences or so-called punishment beatings, it is all an attempt to pull apart the vast consensus for peace in Northern Ireland. The best response to it is to say that whatever incidents of violence are carried out in Northern Ireland we, the decent majority, will carry on constructing a peaceful structure for the people there.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what instructions he has given his Ministers about what the proper action is when they receive leaked Select Committee reports?

We have answered extensively parliamentary questions on this matter. As for the right procedure, I understand that that is being looked into by the House. Whatever recommendations are made, we will fully abide by them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a fairly sophisticated attempt to smear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, using apparently classified material about my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)? Will my right hon. Friend call for an inquiry into what has happened? Might this be the right moment to bring the security and intelligence services under the scrutiny of Parliament?

As we have said many times, we believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the most effective way for the work of agencies to be scrutinised. As for the attempt to smear my right hon. Friend, he has made it clear that this is an obvious and amateurish fake. He has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. I agree that it is not a trivial matter. If she would like to show my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the full contents of the paper sent to her, I know that we would be happy to consider whether there is anything that should be referred to the police for investigation.

Has the Prime Minister noticed that the Commissioners who have been most directly accused of cronyism are almost entirely socialist Commissioners? Does he, therefore, agree that it would be extremely good if the people of Britain elected an overwhelming number of Conservative MEPs to keep them in their place?

For a Conservative Member who disagrees fundamentally with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen's policy on Europe, that was a remarkably supportive question. The answer to it is that the committee of inquiry looked into Commissioners of all political hues. I believe that the people of this country would be better voting for a party that is united on Europe—[Interruption.] I repeat—united on Europe, rather than a party riven with division that reduced this country to having less influence in Europe than at any stage of our membership of the European Union.

May I turn to an issue that will directly affect many people in this country? My right hon. Friend will not have missed the trailing over the weekend of the idea of reforming housing benefit. Of course, that reform will be welcome, but does he recognise that it was the policies of the Conservative Government, in trying spuriously to apply market forces to council and housing association rents, that led directly to the unsustainably high housing benefit costs today?

Yes, of course it was the policy of the previous Government that turned an investment of £10 billion in housing into a housing benefit bill of £10 billion. We want to look at housing benefit as part of housing policy as a whole. That is why we have announced our intention to publish a Green Paper on housing later in the year. The purpose of the reform, as with our other welfare reforms, will be to focus help on people getting back into the labour market and working for themselves. As a result of the Government's policies, we have more people at work. Under the new deal, 200,000 young people are being helped. We know from the policies advanced by the Conservative Opposition that they would scrap the new deal, the working families tax credit and the minimum wage. So much for caring Conservatism.