What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about events to celebrate the bicentenary of the United Kingdom. [142000]

None.

I find that remarkably shocking. Does the Under-Secretary agree that a nation needs to have a sense of its history for its self-respect? Will he, however, confirm that this rotten Government have no intention whatever of celebrating the bicentenary of the United Kingdom? Has not the Minister for patriotism got anything to say about that?

The bicentenary of the 1707 Act of Union, which united the Westminster Parliament with Scotland, was in 1907. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into effect in 1922, and I do not really expect to live to see its bicentenary in due course. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the bicentenary of the 1801 Act of Union falls next year, and the Government will recognise the significance of that. The First Secretary and I have not discussed the matter.

In Wales and Shotton, steelworkers will not be celebrating; they are appalled at the prospect of further redundancies. Does my hon. Friend know that steelworkers are saying that it appears that redundancies are asked of us on this side of the channel, but that in Holland there are fewer? Is there any way in which Her Majesty's Government might help steelworkers in Wales and at Shotton in my constituency?

I praise the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend, whose question involves the interests of his constituency. I represent a neighbouring constituency, and he and I know that steel is important to north-east Wales. He raised an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in discussions with British Steel and Cores and with the steel trade unions and Mike Lehey about those matters. I know that he hopes to raise the matter again with Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of Corns. I recognise that steel is important to Wales in the north, in the south and in the valleys. We shall do what we can to raise those issues on behalf of the Government.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about extending the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. [142001]

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about extending the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. [142002]

I am pleased to tell the House that the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill was published yesterday. That Bill has been widely welcomed and, yesterday, in the National Assembly for Wales, leaders of all political parties in Wales pledged their support to me when I outlined the legislative programme in their Chamber.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he and the Government moved, following the calls by various organisations for the appointment of a Children's Commissioner. The Waterhouse report, which was published in February this year, recommended the creation of the post. I stress how pleased we were that amendments to the Bill that became the Care Standards Act 2000 improved that legislation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who campaigned for the creation of the position. Does the Secretary of State agree that the commissioner who was appointed last week, Mr. Peter Clarke, will radically improve the welfare and rights of children in Wales?

Yes, of course I can do that. My hon. Friend is aware that the establishment of a Children's Commissioner was a manifesto commitment of the Labour party in the 1999 Assembly elections, and that that was supported by other parties in Wales. It was the first recommendation of the Waterhouse report. As a north Wales Member, I know that my hon. Friend is particularly appreciative of that. The Bill will extend the powers of the commissioner to include public bodies that are overseen by the Assembly in Wales, and I welcome the appointment of Mr. Peter Clarke as the first children's champion in the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid publication of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill yesterday is proof that the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government are working together well for the people of Wales? Is not that an example of the way in which the Government can respond quickly to the legislative needs of Wales?

Indeed it is. I obviously agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, when I was in the National Assembly yesterday delivering the legislative programme, all parties there recognised the importance of the appointment. That shows that the devolution settlement for Wales is working well and that we in the House will be able to give the Assembly the tools that it needs to do its job of improving public services in Wales. It also shows that there can be—indeed, there is—a strong working partnership between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly, which will improve the quality of life of people in Wales and especially, in this instance, that of all our children in Wales.

In recognising the appropriateness of the role of the Children's Commissioner in looking after minors in local authority homes and a number of other specified circumstances, does the Secretary of State nevertheless agree that it is vital that that role should not be extended in such a way as to supplant the natural and usually appropriate role of ordinary parents? What steps have been taken to ensure that we avoid that eventuality?

Of course that role does not supplant the role of family life and of parents in any way, but enhances it. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the main reason for implementing the Bill so quickly, and the impetus behind that, is the Waterhouse report and the inquiry that led up to it. I am sorry to say that there were many examples of parents who did not exercise their responsibilities. It is obviously important to understand the role of parents, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that everyone welcomes the creation of the post, the person appointed to it and the work that he will do.

The Bill covering the powers of the Children's Commissioner, which was published yesterday, contains a schedule dealing with those persons and arrangements that will be subject to review—13 of the 24 are all-Wales bodies, which can be subject to the commissioner's powers. However, the Wales Youth Agency is not mentioned in that list. Is it dealt with by another measure or has there been an oversight?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the commissioner will have oversight of all public bodies in Wales, especially those that are dealt with by the National Assembly. Any functions that the Wales Youth Agency exercises on behalf of the Assembly or of its sponsored bodies will be a matter for the Children's Commissioner to deal with if necessary. However, I shall consider further the points that my hon. Friend has made.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Opposition have supported the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales. My colleagues here and in the National Assembly for Wales have spoken in favour of the appointment and we join the Secretary of State in wishing Mr. Peter Clarke well in his challenging job, although many have wondered why England will not benefit from a similar commissioner.

I do not believe that there is any dividing line as such, because normal, caring parents in Wales will welcome the appointment of the Children's Commissioner, who will have a general role as the children's champion in Wales. As I said to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I believe that the appointment does not supplant, but enhances the role of the family and of parents in Welsh society. I have not the slightest doubt that Peter Clarke's appointment will be welcomed by all parents in Wales. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) may be a member of the Committee that deals with the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, and I know that he will support its passage through the House.

If he will make a statement on progress in respect of the miners compensation scheme. [142003]

On 29 November, I was at a meeting of the monitoring group dealing with that issue. We agreed to set up a specific Welsh monitoring group, which will bring together all those involved in the process in Wales. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, as will all Members of the House, that it is vital that everyone involved in the process pulls together to speed up payments to our ex-miners.

As my right hon. Friend is only too well aware, ex-miners all over the country are still dying before receiving their full and final compensation—men such as a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), John Hopkins, who, sadly, died on Monday. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that nothing stands in the way of making a priority of getting sick and elderly ex-miners and ex-miners' widows to the top of the queue and that nothing blocks their way?

I could not agree more with everything that my hon. Friend says. She and I, like a number of Members of the House, represent Welsh mining valleys. I also sympathise with the family of Mr. John Hopkins of Crumlin, who was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). The father of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and my father worked in the same pit. We can understand the feelings of former miners and the widows of former miners, and I entirely agree with her that we should give priority to older ex-miners, those who are gravely ill and the elderly widows. I will certainly ensure that, when the Welsh monitoring group meets in the new year, we do all that we can to make certain that the process recognises the need to prioritise those people.

A fortnight ago I addressed a public meeting in Ammanford on this subject. It was attended by many miners and miners' representatives. Once again, I made the case that the compensation recovery unit should not apply to compensation payments. I was quizzed by a new Labour councillor and another member of new Labour, who said that the miners should not be made a special case. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's view, or were those new Labour wretches just playing politics with the issue?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should talk about "playing politics with the issue". Many politicians of all persuasions in Wales are convinced that this is not a matter for party politics, but a matter that we should all take so seriously that there is no question of party politics. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.

I warmly welcome the proposal for a central monitoring group in south Wales, which may speed up payments. The arrangements have been bedevilled by a complex handling agreement, which comes not from the Government or from Ministers, but from the court. According to that agreement, priority was supposed to be given to the oldest and sickest miners and to widows. A points system was agreed, but it does not seem to have worked. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the monitoring group sees that the arrangement under the handling agreement is implemented, so that the oldest and sickest miners can be given priority?

As I said in answer to earlier questions, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is vital for all involved in the process—the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments, the National Assembly where this applies to it, solicitors, the two companies working in the field and everyone else concerned—to ensure above all else that we give priority to the oldest miners, those who are gravely ill and widows.

What representations he has received on the economic position of farmers in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [142004]

My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I discuss a range of economic issues relating to farmers with Assembly Secretaries and with representatives of both main Welsh farming unions. I am confident that the Government and the National Assembly for Wales have taken all appropriate steps to assist Welsh farmers to achieve a sustainable agricultural industry. The United Kingdom-wide action plan for farming, coupled with the rural development plan for Wales and the industry's own resilience and coherent approach to rural development in Wales, are the right tools to deliver an improved economic position for farmers.

Does the Minister agree that farmers' incomes have been hit particularly badly in Wales because of the unprecedented farming crisis, which especially affects livestock and hill farmers and which has been compounded by the recent floods? What hope can he give Welsh farmers that they will still be farming and earning a living in two or three years' time?

I recognise that the income figures produced recently reflect severe difficulties in the farming industry. The Government and some Opposition Members realise that this is a long-term issue. The Government have given £600 million of additional support to Welsh farmers and are taking a number of steps to help them through, such as the rural development plan, the consultation document "Farming for the Future", the agri-food partnership and Agenda 2000.

Farmers are indeed suffering great economic difficulties. One of the main problems is that, unlike their competitors who sell goods in euros, they sell their products in sterling. When does my hon. Friend expect those so-called advocates of farming on the Conservative Benches to realise that fact and plead the case that this country joins the euro to benefit their farming friends?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the Government's position on the euro. Unlike the Conservative party, we do not rule it out for the whole of the next Parliament. That is what farmers need to consider. They should examine the Opposition's policy on the euro and compare it with the Government's sensible approach.

:. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) apologises for his absence, but he is meeting President Clinton.

I certainly am aware of the difficulties in the dairy industry. Like the hon. Gentleman and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I represent a rural area with many dairy farmers. The Government have examined the difficult issue of supermarkets and their performance, and a report has been published. I certainly will reconsider the representations that have been made, but farming incomes are a difficult matter. The Government are providing resources and implementing measures to help promote farm produce in Wales. That is what will help farmers in Wales and elsewhere.

We hear what the Government say they are doing for farmers, but a liberty and livelihood march will take place on 18 March 2001, in which hundreds of thousands of farmers and those who support the countryside will make their views known. Many of them will come from all parts of Wales. Does the Minister begin to understand why they feel so angry and let down by his Government?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Hunting Bill. I am sure that he would not wish the Government to renege on their manifesto commitments. We have agreed to allow Members of Parliament a free vote on the Bill. I represent a rural area and there is a fox hunt in my constituency. I know what I am going to do on the day, and I trust that other hon. Members will do the same.

The Government have reneged on many other measures in their manifesto, particularly the pledge that there would be no new taxes. Does the Minister not realise that farming is facing the worst crisis in living memory? People who live in less-favoured areas are forecast next year to earn £2,700; petrol taxes have increased by 34 per cent.; the number of young entrants into farming has dropped; and meat inspection charges, veterinary charges, disposal charges and monitoring charges have all increased under his Government. Is it not time that they started to prioritise farmers in Wales instead of focusing on the Hunting Bill, which will cost jobs in the countryside in Wales? Farmers in Wales are not asking for a special deal; they just want an equal deal. If the hon. Gentleman's Government will not give it, the Conservative Government will.

I said that £600 million of farming support in Wales this year was not an insignificant sum. We have abolished dairy hygiene charges and the Chancellor recently announced in the pre-Budget statement the abolition of the meat hygiene inspection charge. The Government are committed to giving Members of Parliament a free vote on hunting. The hon. Gentleman can live with his conscience; we will live with ours, and we will do what we want in our constituencies on that basis.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary and the Welsh Health Secretary with regard to the number of people currently waiting more than 18 months for an operation at a hospital in Wales who live in England. [142007]

The Secretary of State and I would not normally discuss with Assembly Health Secretaries the issue of patients living in England who are waiting for operations in hospitals in Wales, as they are not included in Welsh waiting list figures. These are the responsibility of health authorities in England. However, we are aware that some English residents are admitted to hospitals in Wales, and colleagues at the Department of Health have advised us that the most recent statistics show that the number currently waiting over 18 months is nil.

I am amazed by the Minister's answer. He clearly ducked the question. He must be aware, as I am, that in March 1997 1,400 people had waited more than 18 months for operations. [Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Members on the Government Benches must be quiet.

In March 1997, 1,400 patients had been waiting more than 18 months for in-patient treatment in Wales, but now there are more than 5,000. Under the Government, the waiting lists have increased by 257 per cent. What does he intend to do about that? Surely he must accept that he cannot continue to bat it away and try to avoid the issue.

It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has not read his own question, which asked how many people who live in England and are serviced by hospitals in Wales have waited more than 18 months. The answer to that question is nil. If he wants to talk about Welsh hospital waiting lists, I can tell him that a Conservative Government would, as a result of their proposed tax cuts, reduce the £1.35 billion extra that is being provided over the next three years. I noticed that he did not mention the 9 per cent. increase in his own health authority's funding for this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that waiting lists in Wales are being addressed by the investment that the Government are putting into new hospital provision? In the past two years, I have attended the opening of a brand new community hospital in Chepstow and a new day surgery unit at Abergavenny, and I look forward to attending the opening of the new community hospital in Monmouth in the next couple of years.

My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we deliver hospitals on the ground. Chepstow hospital and the potential new development in the Monmouth constituency are important investments in health care. The £1.35 billion extra that the Government have committed to health care in Wales is threatened by the policies of the Conservative party.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to give notice that, in view of the Minister's unsatisfactory response to my question and the fact that he did not even mention the 257 per cent. increase in waiting lists for in-patient operations in Wales, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

What recent representations he has received with regard to the cost of petrol in Wales. [142008]

I have received representations on the cost of petrol in Wales from a range of organisations and individuals.

May I ask the Minister a simple, factual question, which I hope is incapable of producing spin or waffle? What was the average price of a gallon of petrol in rural Wales in 1997, and what is the price today?

I am trying to work out the rate for a gallon of petrol from the price per litre, but it is about 82p to 90p depending on where in rural Wales one buys it.

Answer the question.

Order.

Following the point made by the Secretary of State, may I ask him about the double tax that people in rural Wales are paying on petrol?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Secretary of State for the price of petrol in 1997. I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

The hon. Gentleman is using the wrong wording. Perhaps he should have a word with one of his hon. Friends who can give him the proper wording.

Further to the point that the Secretary of State made about the price of petrol in rural areas, will he comment on the double tax that many people in those areas are paying? They are paying not only the tax that the Government impose, but the tax that the petrol companies impose for transporting petrol those distances. Rural garages buy their petrol wholesale at a more expensive price than urban garages sell it for. What can he do to address that problem, so that people in rural areas pay a similar price for their petrol to those in urban areas?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that in the last pre-Budget report my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a number of measures relating to the cost of petrol and diesel and vehicle excise duties. As a result of the combination of those two measures, there has been a cut of 8p a litre in diesel for hauliers and 4p a litre in petrol for car users. That applies in both urban and rural areas, so it is good news for the people of Wales.

When he intends to meet the First Secretary in the National Assembly to discuss the national health service in Wales. [142011]

The Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the National Assembly First Secretary to discuss health services in Wales.

When my hon. Friend meets the Health Minister in Wales, will he discuss the modernisation of the NHS as it will apply to Wales, especially the role of the private practice undertaken by NHS consultants? Does he agree that NHS consultants should be rewarded for working exclusively for the NHS?

My hon. Friend makes valuable points and I am sure that he will welcome the health care and modernisation Bill, which will be published shortly. It will apply to England and Wales and fulfil the Government's duty to modernise the NHS.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 December.

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is with President Clinton in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the House will join me in hoping that the visit is successful and in welcoming the President, once again, to the United Kingdom.

The Deputy Prime Minister will be concerned about newspaper reports quoting nurses at the William Harvey hospital in my constituency who say that staff shortages are putting patients' lives at risk today. I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to know about or to comment on local services, but nationally, can he tell the House what percentage of the new nurses recruited in the past 12 months are now working full time?

I do not think that we should take any lectures on this. We have set a target of 20,000 nurses, and 16,000 more nurses are now working in our health service. That is the answer for those who believe in the NHS. Our priority for the health service is 16,000 more nurses and 5,000 more doctors.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to the coalfield areas and ask him to turn his attention to the problems of the textile and clothing industry in those areas. In particular, will he look at the 2,500 job losses in the east midlands, including Amber Valley, which will result from the sell-off of the clothing division of Coats Viyella and see what urgent action can be taken to find new jobs for those tragically facing redundancy just before Christmas?

This is a matter of considerable concern. As my hon. Friend knows, the taskforce is looking at the problem that she has mentioned. I should point out that the stability in our economy should be welcomed by the textile industry and any industries involved in investment. I hope that the taskforce will be able to offer some encouragement and help for that problem.

The Government have set five economic tests for joining the euro. What are they?

I did not hear exactly what the hon. Lady said—[Interruption.] She spoke quickly. If she asked about the tests for joining the euro, I can tell her that we have made that absolutely clear. There will be an economic test on the convertibility of European currencies and there will be a test on the effect the euro will have on our investment and our economy. Those are the conditions that we have laid down and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will address the matter soon after we win the next election.

I will speak more slowly because we are looking for a substantive answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. He has a folder in his hand and, if he does not know the answer by heart, can he now answer questions that other Ministers have resisted? The Government say that the five economic tests are measurable and independent. Can he report progress on each of them to the House? Are we achieving convergence with the economies of the EU on each of the tests?

We have always made our view clear to the House—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear. When he made some assessments a few months ago, he did not feel that we could meet the conditions. He said that he would report to the House after the next election and give an assessment of the tests, which include financial services and employment.

Is it not clear from the Deputy Prime Minister's answer that not only are the Government not monitoring the convergence criteria, five of which were set by the Chancellor, but they have failed to produce reports that put that information before the House? The Deputy Prime Minister has failed again today to answer that question. Is it not the reality that there are not five economic tests but one political test—whether the Government can get away with it? Will they not do anything to scrap the pound, whether it means setting meaningless tests, fiddling a referendum, or a conspiracy of silence at the next general election?

I remind the hon. Lady that those tests will again be measured and considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and will be brought to the House. I am bound to say that her history on these European issues has not been helpful either to her own side or to the European argument.

I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Shrewsbury yesterday to see for himself the severe flooding that has hit the town. In total this year, businesses and homes have been flooded out six times. I urge him to cut through the red tape and to help Shrewsbury to find the investment that is needed for a new flood defence scheme.

The whole House will identify with the concerns of people who have suffered bad experiences from floods during the past few months or so. I know that Members on both sides of the House have visited those areas and offered sympathy on behalf of all of us. In reality, what we have to do is much more about investment in flooding. There has been increased investment in flooding both by the previous Administration and by this Government. Indeed, the £51 million that I announced is designed to bring forward some of those flood schemes.

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister not a test question, but a question to which millions of travellers would like the answer? By what date does he expect the frequency, punctuality and timetable that existed before the Hatfield crash to be in operation again on our rail system?

Everyone is concerned about that matter. Indeed, in my discussions with Railtrack I have made it clear that we want the timetable to be back as quickly as possible, but I recognise the massive amount of work involved in checking all the lines; it is a considerable job. A tremendous amount of re-railing is needed—300-odd miles, with about 600 cross-over points—which creates real problems.

Although much of the chaos results from the fragmentation and mess of the Tory privatisation, since we cannot have a date, can we know who is in charge, given that there are almost daily ministerial meetings and summits through which the Government acknowledge that they must take on some responsibility? What is the role of the Strategic Rail Authority in sorting all this out? Is it a responsibility that will stay with the Deputy Prime Minister's Department, or is a consequence of all this that the Department of Transport will be floated off again, and these responsibilities with it? Many people are suffering rail journeys twice as long as they used to experience; the service is extremely unpredictable. What will be done?

The right hon. Gentleman was not listening to my reply. I gave a date. I said that the recovery programme expected that we would be back to normal service by the Easter period—and the timetables; it is all identified in the recovery programme. It will be impossible to get a sustainable timetable if we do not have a recovery period for all the work that has to be done on the track, and it is considerable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive investment and effort that has been put in over the past two years by central and local government and the work force at Vauxhall, Luton to secure the future of that plant? Does he understand the anger of the work force and the local community at the slap in the face, just before the festive season, of the announcement by General Motors of the closure of that car plant? Will he join me in making representations to General Motors at the highest level to ensure that the company takes full responsibility for ensuring the financial future of the families affected, the work force and the local community?

The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend. It is a tragic day for the workers who received that information during the past 24 hours. The House will also agree that it is a great pity that they were not informed earlier. Later today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement on the matter and hon. Members will be able to question him about the details. As we showed at Longbridge, the Government are prepared to intervene where they can to help in these matters. In response to the situation at Rover, we established a taskforce and a regional development agency, which, I might add, the Opposition would abolish if they were ever elected. Those bodies played a major part in addressing the problems in the midlands. I am sure that, once again, they will have a role to play in my hon. Friend's constituency, but we shall have to wait for the statement from my right hon. Friend.

The nation greatly enjoyed the Prime Minister on television last night. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his right hon. Friend, as was widely reported this morning, that life on the railways now is hell, or does he agree with his noble Friend Lord Macdonald who, echoing Lord Callaghan's famous remarks, said that there is no crisis on the railways? Which of them is right?

The hon. Gentleman should know from his membership of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs more than most hon. Members do about the incompetence in the industry. My right hon. Friend Lord Macdonald made it clear that there was a crisis in investment and a crisis in management. Anyone who looks at the tape of that interview will find that it is not a proper representation—[Interruption.] The New Statesman is quite famous for changing the character of what was intended or meant in order to make a headline. One can check that, but at the end of the day it is a bit much coming from a member of the party that was in government, established Railtrack and caused the ruddy mess. The crisis in our rail industry came from the privatisation of Railtrack and the rail industry by the previous Administration.

The Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the weapon of terror is used not exclusively against sovereign states but sometimes by them. I know that he will be aware of the massacre of 29 Tamils at the Bindunuwewa detention camp in Sri Lanka. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the centre for human rights and development that the massacre was co-ordinated and carried out with the complicity of the local Sri Lankan police? Will he assure my Tamil constituent whose family suffered in this dreadful action that Britain will give no support to terrorism, from whatever source?

Everyone in the House will be concerned at the acts of terrorism carried out by the Tamil groups, and we offer our sympathy to all who have suffered the consequences. I can say on behalf of the Government and the whole House that we condemn any such terrorism.

Given that only five of the 16 Bills in the Queen's Speech apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, what does the Deputy Prime Minister think that voters of England and Wales will feel when they see Scottish Members trooping through the Lobby to vote on matters that relate exclusively to England and Wales and over which he and I have no reciprocal rights in Scotland? Does he agree that, pending a proper constitutional resolution to the problem, all Scottish Members should follow the honourable example of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and take a vow of abstinence, starting with the Hunting Bill on Monday?

The issues surrounding two-tier government concern everyone in the House. They did not seem to concern the previous Administration when it came to Northern Ireland, and in opposition we supported their initiative in that respect. The hon. Gentleman's views are well known, and these controversial matters will continue to be debated in the House.

Ever since the time of Adam, local government has complained about the amount of central Government funding for local services. Will my right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and representatives of local government sit around a table in the near future and thrash out a system that is understandable and which targets money so that it goes where it is needed?

Matters of local finance have always caused considerable controversy, as the poll tax and other matters have shown. It is a matter of record that the amount given in grant by this Government has risen this year by 6.7 per cent., or £2.8 billion. In the four years since 1997–98, central Government grant to local government has gone up by 13.6 per cent. in real terms. That compares with a cut of 6.9 per cent. in the previous four years. However it is measured, the Government have a very good record when it comes to the resources and priority given to local government. We have secured real-terms increases, not the real-terms reduction that was the record of the previous Administration.

Perhaps I can ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question that he might be able to answer. He has agreed with Lord Macdonald and admitted that there is crisis in the railway industry. He protests that he is merely clearing up the mess, but is not it the case, after four years of this Government, that we have a rail system in which 10,000 trains run late, the bill to industry in the past two years has amounted to billions of pounds, this year's Christmas post is in turmoil, and it takes passengers nine hours to get from Nottingham to London?

It is a bit of a cheek for the hon. Lady to come here and talk about the railway industry in that way, given that Conservative Front Benchers have disowned the way in which it was privatised. The industry's organisation is wrong—the chief executive of Railtrack has said that it has the worst kind of organisation. The right hon. Lady therefore has a bit of cheek to stand up and criticise what is going on.

I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister could move on to another crisis. Does he agree with the Prime Minister that there will be a crisis in the national health service this winter?

He did not say that, just as Lord Macdonald did not say that there was no crisis in the rail industry. My right hon. Friend said that there are difficulties and that the Government are putting extra resources into the NHS to resolve them. As I understand it, more than 90 per cent. of health trusts have already stated that, because of those extra resources, they are better fitted to deal with problems this winter.

If the Deputy Prime Minister will not accept that there is a crisis, will he listen to the words of a doctor? Dr. Stuart Withington, the director of intensive care at the Royal London hospital has said:

We are seeing crisis every day in intensive care, cancelled operations, refused emergency admissions, non-clinical transfers to other units. It is just a battle zone every day.

Either the hon. Lady is ignorant of the facts, which clearly shows from her question, or perhaps this is a case of bad judgment on her part. When one looks at her history and past statements, one sees that she worked as a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the previous Government during the BSE crisis, and was named in the Phillips report and got the judgment wrong. She said that the minimum wage was the kiss of death to employment, but the number of jobs has gone up in her constituency and 1 million more people are back in work. The hon. Lady was also the campaign manager for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Her judgment is wrong, not the facts.

In the spirit of Christmas, will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister make my constituents in Rugby even happier by announcing that he will provide the extra money for the western relief road that the Tories failed to deliver in 18 years?

In the spirit of Christmas, I can announce that tomorrow £8.8 billion will be made available for local transport plans, out of the £180 billion investment planned for the next 10 years—far beyond any amount given by the previous Government. The local transport plans will cover light rail systems, road systems and the bus and rail industries. My hon. Friend must wait until tomorrow for the spirit of Christmas, but I do not think that he will be disappointed.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the National Rail Enquiry Bureau has been giving false information about the running of trains on the west coast main line between Stockport and London for the past two weeks? Is he aware that the bureau refused to put that information right until it had been notified by the Association of Train Operating Companies, even though it knew that the information was wrong? Does he share the anger of my constituents not only that it takes four hours to get to London, but that it takes two weeks to get information to the National Rail Enquiry Bureau?

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Since the whole terrible business started after the Hatfield tragedy, we have constantly sought information from Railtrack on these matters. Looking carefully at the problems, one realises that, if one wants a reliable timetable, it is crucial to have a national recovery programme. The difficulty facing some of the train companies was that, when they set their timetables, they found that further examination of the track brought more train restrictions. It is impossible to maintain a sustainable timetable on those grounds.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of the Allerton bus and rail interchange in my south Liverpool constituency will be an important part of the on-going regeneration of the area? Tomorrow morning, when he hands out his Christmas presents as he makes his announcement about transport investment, will he consider the claims of my south Liverpool constituency and the redevelopment of the Allerton bus and rail interchange?

I do not want to appear to be too much like Santa Claus—or I should be inviting everyone to ask what will be in tomorrow's statement. However, the statement is a good one; it is about improving transport. It does of course consider Merseyside—as it does every region in the country; hon. Members can wait for that until tomorrow.

Mr. John Butterfill—not here.

Oh!

Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise that the main line to the south-west is completely out of action yet again? London is in effect cut off from the south-west. Does he accept that his comments about the lack of investment in the rail infrastructure over many years and the failure to keep the Victorian engineering works throughout the country up to date—especially in the south-west—show that there has been a complete failure under successive Governments? Does he regret the fact that his party, in opposition, failed to stop the sell-off of Railtrack and failed to make sure that we could keep Railtrack under public control by simply ensuring that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would bring the company back into public control with a bond system?

The reality was that public sector industry—especially British Rail—had been denied resources for a number of decades. I made that point as constantly when I was in opposition as I do in government. Let me be clear that considerable changes were required in the long-term financing of rail. At least I was able to make a happy agreement with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to raise that £180 billion; what that has to do is guarantee long-term investment. The two or three-year Treasury rule was no good for our public sector capital investment.

Did my right hon. Friend watch the BBC "Sports Review of the Year" on Sunday, which featured my constituents Jason Queally and Jeanette Brakewell—both of whom were Olympic medallists? Was my right hon. Friend as disappointed as I was that Tanni Grey-Thompson, also an Olympic medallist, was unable to collect her award with the other winners because nobody had thought to provide a ramp for her wheelchair? Is that not a lesson to us all that we must press ahead at full speed with the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to put a stop to such insulting treatment of one section of society?

The whole House will be concerned that people were unable to receive their awards for that reason. Our Disability Rights Commission exists to correct it. In several policy matters—I know about those in transport—we are meeting requirements under the legislation to ensure that access is a right and is available to everyone. The House will want to express its sorrow that those people could not accept their awards and I hope that, at some point in the future, arrangements will be made so that they can enjoy them.

Many of my constituents in Torridge and West Devon, like many people in the country, are having their lives devastated by repeated flooding of their homes and businesses. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the formula for apportioning the flood defence budget seriously disadvantages rural areas? Weight is given to housing density twice over; once is fair but twice is unfair. Will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to review the formula immediately to ensure that a fair proportion of the flood defence funding goes to our rural towns and villages?

The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point, which was also made in our discussions about what we could do about the floods a few weeks ago. It is connected with the arguments and judgments made by the Treasury and others about cost benefit, which I felt was inadequate because it did not take into account how often certain people are affected by flooding. This is not just about how many houses are involved but about how frequent flooding is, and I do not think that the present cost benefit analysis allows for that. I have ordered an inquiry, and the Environment Agency and others will make a report, so I hope that we will be able to deal with the problem.