To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the proposed programme for the Government's response to the report of the London implementation group.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to conclude the reorganisation of hospital provision in London.

"Making London Better" sets out the timetable for improving London's health service, including our £170 million programme for strengthening primary care in the capital. The need for change is most urgent in inner London, where a number of hospital site option appraisals are already under way. Another key element will be the recommendations of the recently published independent specialty review reports. The main proposals for the future configuration of services in inner London will come forward in the autumn. Any major proposals to change services will, of course, be subject to full public consultation.

I recognise my right hon. Friend's problems and motives in rationalising health care in London. In the present economic climate, and with particular reference to Bart's, about which there has been so much public concern, can she give the House an absolute assurance that adequate funds will be available for the movement of units from Bart's to the Royal London hospital? If she is unable to give the House that assurance, will she say that the units, which have been recognised as centres of excellence in the specialty reviews and generally, will be allowed to operate on two sites so that nothing of value is destroyed?

I give my hon. Friend a clear assurance that the intention of "Making London Better" is to improve and strengthen the specialist services. Independent commentator after independent commentator has reinforced the point that the London specialty services are fragmented, duplicate each other and will not be national, let alone international, centres of excellence unless change is embraced. My hon. Friend is right; we need to take great care and show consideration for preserving excellence, but I commend to him the words of Professor Besser when he said:

"Bart's would not have survived 870 years if it had not been flexible."

What does the right hon. Lady have to say to the statement made by Mr. Sandy Macara, the new chairman of the British Medical Association, who said that the national health service would be dead inside seven years unless the rot was stopped now and that it was underfunded by £6 billion?

The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members should read the edition of the British Medical Journal from the week after the specialty reviews were reported, which said:

"The specialty reviews show clearly that some clinical services in London are not as good as they should be … Those who ultimately make the decisions on London should not lose sight this summer of the fact that their aim is to improve services for Londoners and the people of the Thames regions … it is not to protect institutions."

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need to implement the changes to health care in London at a sensible rate, in line with the changes in demand? Will she ensure that the changes in the number of acute beds are in line both with changes in demand and with improvements in primary health care?

I give my hon. Friend that clear assurance. We said that we would not make progress in London until we had invested in primary care. This year, £43·5 million is going into primary care, in 78 different capital schemes. Tomorrow, I shall open the South Westminster health centre, a £1·7 million investment in family doctor and community services. There is an urgent need to take our proposals forward because, all over the south-east, district health authorities are changing their patterns of referral. The London specialty services treat, on average, about half the number of cancer patients that are treated in other parts of the country, so it is extremely urgent, if their excellence and their reputations are to be protected, that we take change forward.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the way in which she has handled the Tomlinson report and the specialty reviews has blighted the whole of London's health service and that she is responsible for the low morale of staff, for undermining patients' confidence, for talking down the national health service and for causing chaos, because she does not have a clue what to do now that the reforms have failed? Are not the reforms that she said would save the national health service destroying it like a creeping cancer?

Again, I urge the hon. Lady to do her homework. I commend the words of Christopher Ward, a consultant at Charing Cross hospital, who said:

"Too many specialist services are supplied to the dwindling population of London. These vary from the excellent to the inadequate".

"Ministers should be congratulated on the way they have responded to the Tomlinson Report. As a result of meaningful consultations they have produced a Government response the broad thrust of which is supported by the medical profession at national level".

As my right hon. Friend takes the momentous decisions that she has to take to strengthen primary health care in London, will she bear in mind the fact that the destruction of a world-famous centre such as the Royal Marsden hospital would need justification stronger than that thus far offered by the differing opinions of Tomlinson and of the review group? Furthermore, will she also take into account the facts that London's gain over many years has been the loss of areas such as mine and that she will have to bear a great burden in deciding where to direct the resources that she takes from London and redistributes to the provinces?

I certainly respond to the second part of my hon. Friend's remarks, because London has been spending 20 per cent. of the money on 15 per cent. of the people. There have been improvements, but there has been a distortion in the balance of provision in London because of the numerous duplicated speciality services and the great number of sites and institutions that have not changed at the same pace as the delivery of health care and the great investment outside London.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received on the subject of health authority mergers.

I have received a number of representations on that subject, including one from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Most recently, I had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

As we move towards the merger of the two health authorities in north-east Lancashire, can the Minister give the assurance that when the consultation takes place it will be genuine, and not a total sham, as was the consultation before we moved to trust status? Will he also guarantee that, as a result of the merger, there will not be a rationalisation that will provide less effective local services to the people of north-east Lancashire?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that I can give him that assurance. Those to be consulted will include local Members of Parliament, any districts or family health services authorities that are affected, local community health councils, interested local authorities, trusts, universities and professional and representative organisations.

My hon. Friend is well aware that Macclesfield borough council, Crewe and Nantwich borough council, Macclesfield community health council, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) are strongly opposed to the proposed merger of Crewe and Macclesfield health authorities.

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views. He has failed to mention all the bodies and organisations that are in favour of the merger. I must remind my hon. Friend, however, that if he wants the best for the patients in his constituency, he will want a stronger purchaser with a larger number of residents, so that the purchaser has more influence with providers. That is the whole point of the purchaser-provider split.

Is the Minister aware that that was the greatest load of claptrap that even he has ever uttered? There is no reasonable argument—medical, political or economic—for jamming together those two health authorities, which do not have common services and do not want the amalgamation. Will the Minister admit that he has no more intention of taking any notice of local people or local Members of Parliament than he has of learning to fly around the Chamber without a kite?

The hon. Lady must realise that common services are not the main point. The main point is that a strong purchaser representing her constituents will be better able to assess the health needs of the whole area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the working of section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides for a patient suffering from mental disorder to be compulsorily admitted to hospital for assessment for a maximum of 28 days. We have been reviewing the general adequacy of the Act's provisions in relation to vulnerable or potentially dangerous psychiatric patients and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce her conclusions on this shortly.

I have given previous notice of three cases to my hon. Friend. The first involved a patient who was detained on inconclusive evidence, with subsequent devasting damage to the patient's family. The second case involved a patient whom two doctors had certified should be detained. The social worker refused to detain the patient, who then went outside and bopped the social worker on the head. The patient had to be brought inside and detained. In the third case, the patient could not get any evidence—

The hon. Gentleman is trying the patience of the House. Will he come to his question to the Minister?

I am grateful for your advice, Madam Speaker. In view of the abuses of the current system, will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the system whereby a mental health tribunal takes 21 days to settle such cases? Will my hon. Friend set up a quicker conciliation procedure?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notes of the cases to which he referred. As he said, some of the cases were referred too quickly and others were not referred quickly enough. I am seeking comments from the authorities involved about the cases raised. Section 2 requires a tribunal to act within seven days, not 21. Under the 1983 Act, the Mental Health Act Commission acts on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in keeping the working of the Act under review. That can include any aspect of the Act.

Can the Minister explain how it can be right that people detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 have no statutory right to after-care under section 117? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Health to use her powers to direct health authorities, local authorities and NHS trusts to have some minimum standard of after-care, thus preventing mental health patients or ex-patients who recognise that they need treatment going for help and being turned away?

It is our wish that everyone who needs treatment and after-care should receive it. That is why we have put in place the care programme approach, which ensures that everyone who leaves institutional care has a programme of treatment and social welfare and a key worker to assist. The mental health task force under David King is travelling around the country ensuring that social services departments are better able to receive such people and, indeed, to look after them while they are in the community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, for example, in rural communities, schizophrenic patients who from time to time have to be sectioned find that when housing is found for them they are housed in a large urban conurbation? That exacerbates their problem because they are away from the area where they are known by the local community and the area with which they are familiar. Will my hon. Friend examine that issue? It is a particular problem in rural constituencies such as mine.

I accept entirely that the point that my hon. Friend raises is important. The programme for housing between the health authority and the relevant local authority social services department should be put in place before the patient is returned to the community. Certainly, the wishes and needs of the patient as well as of the patient's carers will be taken into account. I am sure that needs will be met in the way that my hon. Friend wishes.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern that the Government's only apparent response to the increasing lack of public confidence in community care is to amend the mental health legislation and strengthen its provisions? Is not it astonishing that the Government admitted in the last oral Health questions, that they did not have the least idea where thousands of psychiatric patients who had been discharged while the Government have been in power had gone?

I wonder whether it is not time that the hon. Gentleman understood that it is our policy that everyone who has a mental health problem should be considered carefully and have his or her interests taken into account. It is not the case that beds are closed and people are thrown out into the community; bed closures must be set against a much wider range of provision in the community for former long-stay patients.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made regarding plans for a specialist cardiac unit at Plymouth.

I understand that South Western regional health authority has asked local health districts to prepare a business case for the development of a cardiac surgery unit at Derriford hospital in Plymouth.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is simply not acceptable for people living in Plymouth, which is the 14th largest city in the country, to have to travel 120 miles to Bristol or 240 miles to London for cardiac treatment? Does that not further show the urgent need to reallocate the surplus capacity in London's specialty services to ensure that those vital facilities are available for the regions where they are badly needed and would be warmly welcomed?

I have visited my hon. Friend's constituency and talked to some of the patients at Derriford hospital who have had to travel large distances and I am aware of the problem. However, my hon. Friend should be aware that a decision on a cardiac unit is not taken lightly: the unit must be of a certain size. He will be aware also that, of those patients currently treated at Bristol, some will continue to be referred to Bristol and others may well continue to be referred to Oxford or London. Before any such decision can be taken, it has to be proved that there will be a sufficient number of referrals to a new cardiac unit.

Is the Minister aware that the incidence of heart disease in the Plymouth health authority area is among the highest in the country, yet that is one of the few areas of England without a dedicated unit to carry out angioplasty and bypass operations? As hundreds of people are travelling from Devon and Cornwall each year for cardiac treatment in London and Bristol, will the hon. Gentleman now give urgent consideration to providing funds so that such a unit can be set up in Plymouth without further delay?

The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that it has been a matter of resources. It has been a matter of the need to refer to a suitable centre. He will know, perhaps, that the region is intending to cater for 316 coronary artery bypass grafts per million population. That is above the national average of 300. That increase may justify a new centre.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the fact that a cardiac unit in Plymouth would serve not only Plymouth and that part of Devon but Cornwall? It is a long day's march from Cornwall to London, as I and other hon. Members from Cornwall know. It is also a long distance from my constituency to Bristol. Will my hon. Friend examine that matter with urgency and sympathy?

The long distances are a major factor. It would appear that, if there is to be a second centre, the most suitable location would be Plymouth.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the management of Trent regional health authority.

Trent regional health authority has an excellent record in the delivery of health services. In the past four years, for example, it has seen a 75 per cent. increase in the use of day surgery, releasing resources to treat more patients. Long waiting times, in particular, have fallen dramatically. Almost a third of the region's population now benefit from having a GP fund holder, which is well ahead of the national average. We expect that, from next year, all but four of the region's units will have been strengthened by NHS trust status.

The Secretary of State is one of the few people left with confidence in Trent regional health authority. Is she aware of the catalogue of disasters going uninvestigated in that authority: Beverley Allitt; brain damaged babies at Doncaster royal infirmary; Neil Silvester, the psychiatrist who released one of his patients, who, two days later, stabbed to death an innocent 12-year-old girl in Doncaster; and, recently, an unfortunate stabbing in Doncaster royal infirmary?

The hon. Gentleman cites a number of cases, all of which are complex and, as he rightly says, deeply concerning. I commend an article from the Solicitors' Journal that identifies the cases in which a public inquiry is the best approach as distinct from an investigative inquiry where the results are revealed. It states that the format of the public inquiry is quite unsuited to the delicate and sensitive issues of health and child care matters, and that

"The only criteria to be satisfied in the Allitt case are that:

the inquiry team are competent and independent

that they have access to the information

that witnesses are confident to come forward and give their evidence

that the report is published in full".

"will satisfy the overriding concern of the parents, the medical profession and the public that the truth be known".

Will the Secretary of State tell the House why she is refusing to meet the parents of Beverley Allitt's victims unless they agree not to discuss the proceedings of the Clothier committee, and why she is refusing a public inquiry on a day when the Clinical Standards Advisory Group has declared the devastating and indicting state of neonatal intensive care facilities in Britain? Does the right hon. Lady agree with the advisory group that the market in health has failed, that there is a need for proper health planning and that, unless that takes place, people throughout Britain can have no faith in the national health service under the right hon. Lady's tutelage?

That is another typical example of the way in which the hon. Gentleman fails to understand the changes that have been taking place in the health service. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group was set up by the Government precisely to advise on specialist services. It certainly does not say that they are in any way jeopardised by the changes that have taken place. Its advice must be considered by purchasers in securing ever-increasing standards of care for their local health authorities.

"The nature of a public inquiry with its adversarial atmosphere and the length of time that such proceedings demand may not necessarily establish the truth nor at the end of the day throw a lot of light on what actually happened."

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the implementation of "The Health of the Nation".

The White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", which was published a year ago, has been widely welcomed both within the NHS and further afield, not least by the World Health Organisation which described it as a model for others to follow. Progress towards meeting the targets set out in the White Paper is generally good. A wide range of activities is under way to ensure that we secure the improvements in health which are the overall aim of our policy. Much of the work is being reflected this week in a range of publications and events to mark the first anniversary of the White Paper.

I thank the Secretary of State for that rosy report on the state of the nation's health, but can she justify to the House her proposals to close so many of the nation's hospitals, including five in north Manchester alone? Is she aware that there is such a wave of anger that this weekend 500 people took to the streets of north Manchester opposing the closure of the Booth Hall children's hospital? In the light of that, will she reconsider her decision to close that hospital?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, no decision has been taken on that matter, but the health of the nation cannot be measured in institutions which were built for generations past. Investment in health is important in primary care, family doctors and community nurses, emphasising prevention as well as cure. In the hon. Gentleman's health authority since 1979 there has been an increase of half as much again in the number of day cases, a two thirds fall in the one-year waiters, a 59 per cent. —nearly a 60 per cent.—increase in the number of general practitioners and a 67 per cent. increase in the number of dentists. That is a clear investment in health. Health is not only about institutions—in this country or anywhere else in the world.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that "The Health of the Nation" White Paper has taken the health service a giant step forward towards its original goal of securing improvements in the overall state of health? Does she also agree that the Labour party is constantly displaying its lack of vision by continuing to focus on input measures, such as the number of beds, when the health service is changing and the emphasis should be on improving health?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The health service should not be measured by the number of beds. It is not a furniture warehouse. We should measure the health service in terms of the number of patients treated. That is why the extra 400,000 patients treated in the past year represented such a great achievement for the staff involved.

Given the Secretary of State's special understanding of the feelings and emotions of unmarried mothers, will she denounce as insensitive and hypocritical the comments made at the weekend by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who speaks for a Government who have cut family planning resources, who have reduced the school health service, who have failed to tackle teenage pregnancies and whose policies are designed to undermine and destroy rather than build up and secure responsibility and commitment to the family?

I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's approach. Be that as it may, however, I believe strongly that children need families. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was pointing out that rabid ideas of feminism are not the best approach to bringing up children and that children need mothers as well as fathers. I believe that my hon. Friend is exactly right and I also congratulate him on his work in talking about the importance of sex education in schools, where he has been taking a clear line that children need to be prepared for the world in which they are to live.

One of the key aims of "The Health of the Nation" is a reduction in the incidence of coronary heart disease, in which two contributory factors are smoking and diet. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on their success before the European Court on the question of health warnings on cigarette packets, but can she tell us what steps she proposes to take to reduce smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds in the light of the chief medical officer's concern that targets may not be reached? Can she also tell us what success the nutritional task force, which she appointed in December, has had in persuading us all to follow healthier diets?

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has long been a champion in the fight against smoking. He will know that we have had greater success than almost any other European country in reducing smoking. Only the Netherlands has a better record than ours. The Netherlands shares our approach to the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising, but also our policy of taking vigorous and determined action to ensure that we get the message home to young people as well as their parents. Children of parents who strongly disapprove of smoking are seven times less likely to smoke than other children.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the Royal Free hospital in the pattern of London's health care following the Tomlinson review.

The Royal Free hospital will continue in its role as an important and well-managed provider of services to local patients.

Does that mean that the recommendations of the London implementation group specialty reviews will not be implemented? Under those recommendations, the Royal Free would lose cancer treatment, neurosurgery, paediatrics and a world-renowned renal transplant unit. Are not the review boards, brought into being by the Department of Health, yet another smokescreen put up by the Government in an attempt to conceal the basic fault in their policy, which is that a market economy cannot provide the health service that the country demands and should receive?

Of course they are not. As the hon. Lady knows, the specialty review reports represent independent advice to Ministers and they will not determine—by themselves, certainly—the future pattern of services. The recommendations as they affect the Royal Free will no doubt be a subject for discussion with the region, with local hospitals and with the implementation group, to ensure that all points are properly satisfied. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the hon. Lady on 23 June and I confirm it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we can all go on about our own local hospitals and that I could make a strong case for more resources for Kingston hospital, but that our policy is about universal health care across the whole of London and our first priority must be primary care across London?

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. When I visited the Royal Free on Friday, I found it adopting a more positive attitude towards its future than the hon. Member in whose constituency it lies ever adopts in the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the rules governing free dental treatment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the rules governing free dental treatment.

Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's review of the remuneration of general dental practitioners set out a number of options for changing the way in which we deliver general dental services. We have consulted widely on his report and will announce our proposals in due course.

Does the Minister agree that prevention is both wise and, in the longer term, economic? Is he not willing to implement the Select Committee's recommendation that a core service of diagnostic and preventive care should be available to all patients free of charge?

Prevention is, of course, an important aspect of health care; the hon. Gentleman is right on that point. We have read the Select Committee report with great interest—and great care—and will reflect on it seriously before making a judgment. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I remind him that paragraph 151 of the report says:

"There was, however … much more consensus amongst witnesses concerning the problems than concerning the solutions."

Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government have no intention whatever of removing from pregnant women and nursing mothers the current entitlement to free dental health care?

What I will do is take the hon. Lady's views into consideration, even though the consultation period has concluded. I will do that against the background of my knowledge that at no time did the Labour party offer any considered view as part of the public consultation on the way in which dentistry should develop in this country. I have taken note of that. I have also taken note of the fact that the Liberal Democrats do not have a considered view for the future either.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government and our leading partners will exert maximum pressure on the Japanese to open their markets to imports of all kinds and to the sort of free trade that is now developing rapidly in the European single market?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise that. One of the key aims of the G7 summit will be to agree on measures that can help to further the recovery of the world economy, including the maintenance and sustenance of free and competitive trade. My right hon. Friend's aim will include very much ensuring that sufficient progress is made on the market access and services package to permit early resumption of the multilateral negotiations in Geneva and bring a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round.

Is the Lord President aware that, last night in another place, his ministerial colleagues said that the defeat that the Government suffered on the Railways Bill struck at the heart of that legislation? Does he agree?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the Government have set out and seen accepted in this place their arguments on this matter and he will take a lot of persuading to believe that the policy should be changed. Nevertheless, the other place has asked for reconsideration and, of course, we will carefully consider the points that have been made.

Is it not crazy that the French, the Germans or the Italians will be able to run trains on British railways and the only people who will not are British Rail? Why do the Government not show some common sense and simply admit that they have got it wrong?

The right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends have fought every privatisation for 12 or 14 years. As one by one the privatisations have proved successful, they have been forced to abandon most of that. The people who need to learn the lessons are Her Majesty's Opposition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has published figures today showing an 11 per cent. increase in new care sales over June 1992? Is that not further evidence that the recovery is being sustained?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend has described exactly the figures published this morning by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. What is more, the SMMT goes on to say that recovery in the new car market in all but three of the past 15 months is now clearly established. That comes alongside all the other evidence that we have seen—manufacturing output tip, car output up, exports up and unemployment down.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the Leader of the House recall that on 29 October 1987, less than six years ago, as the then Minister for Health, he proudly came to my constituency to open the Duchess of York children's hospital? Is he aware that, last week, South Manchester health authority confirmed its plan to close that purpose-built children's hospital despite overwhelming opposition?

I well remember the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have to say that the hospital was not opened by me but by the Duchess of York. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering the proposal, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it will be subject to full public consultation. My right hon. Friend will make her decision in due course.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that political parties should not sell the right to choose their leaders or decide their policies? Can he confirm that the Conservative party remains committed to one man, one vote?

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. The activities of political parties are not a subject for Prime Minister's Question Time. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) must question the Government about their policies. It is Government policy in which we are interested.

rose—

No.

Order. The Leader of the House has been with us a long time and he is a respected man in this place. I am sure that he has an appropriate reply.

I was going to say that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) was asking about the Government's attitude to such matters. [Interruption.] I think that that question is entirely right. I have read with great interest the press reports of recent days, starting with that about the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who said that he was going to have a confrontation with the unions, and followed by the comments of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said that she was looking for compromise. I just wonder when we shall have the climbdown and capitulation.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Leader of the House aware that 405 former council properties are empty in the city of Nottingham and that 80 of them have already been vandalised, when 350 households have been designated as statutorily homeless and another 104 families live in conditions that are statutorily overcrowded? Does the Leader of the House not believe that it is time that the Government took a compassionate and humanitarian view and allowed the city council to spend some of the £53 million that it has amassed from the sale of council houses to put roofs over those people's heads?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, at this period of time, Nottingham city council—in common with others—has full freedom to spend capital receipts. It can also take advantage—[Interruption.] It may spend capital receipts generated at this time. It also has access to the full range of measures that my right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced to assist the housing market.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Viscount Runciman and his colleagues on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which has been published today? Although many of its recommendations will require a great deal of thought and consideration, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements in our criminal justice system are desirable not just to protect the innocent but to ensure that the guilty are properly convicted?

Hear, hear.

It is obvious from the response of my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, I suspect, a good deal of sympathy from the Opposition—that there is a wide welcome for the report that has been published today by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. There will no doubt be differences of opinion about some of the report's conclusions, but the importance of that matter is undoubted. The contribution that the royal commission has made to the debate on those matters is undoubted and the Government will give its recommendations the most careful consideration and then come to conclusions about what to do.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Lord President aware that the Prime Minister visited north Cornwall exactly five months ago today and promised my constituents that he was taking action on excessive water and sewerage charges? Will he confirm whether it is the Government's policy to renege on existing environmental obligations or does he intend to break that promise?

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to my right hon. Friend's visit to the south-west and to his recognition of the concern felt in the south-west, and much expressed by my hon. Friends, about the level of water charges. My right hon. Friends have been actively examining the options for reducing the increase in charges and, particularly, phasing in the burdens of the waste water directive in a way that would help. That consideration is going on at the moment.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with Senator Campos, who is currently leading a Brazilian Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Westminster, when he said last night that Brazil is not just a country of the future, nor Britain just a country of the past, but that both are countries for today? Is that not best illustrated by the figures for Jaguar cars, which show that output has gone up 46 per cent., exports to Germany and the United States by 20 per cent., and that confidence in that company is greater than for many years.

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in Brazil and echo the welcome that he has given to the visitors who are here from that country. I join him also in hoping that they may boost Jaguar car sales still further by taking some back with them. Meanwhile, I endorse my hon. Friend's pleasure at the British motor industry in accelerating away from its European competitors and links with the figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that we were discussing earlier.

If the Government are really concerned about single mothers on benefit, when will they bring forward a strategy for child care? Is the Minister aware that most women on benefit would dearly like to go out to work and be independent but that their main problem is child care? When will the Government understand that investment in child care would be an investment in growth in general, and the surest and most humane way to get women off social security?

The hon. Lady will be familiar with the increase in pre-school provision of all kinds in recent years. She will also be well aware that at least as important a part of a policy in the area with which she is concerned are those policies for the improved collection and enforcement of child maintenance represented by the Child Support Agency, now getting successfully under way.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

I have been asked to reply.

Is it correct to say that my right hon. Friend's colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry have secured a further £2 billion of help from European Community structural funds to help two of the most disadvantaged areas of the United Kingdom? If so, is that not proof of the merits of working vigorously and whole-heartedly within the Community, rather than constantly fretting about our relationship with it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the Minister for Industry on his negotiating success in the Community at the end of last week. He succeeded in reaching an agreement which will extend objective 1 status under the structural fund to Merseyside and to the Highlands and Islands enterprise area, and to the areas Argyll, Bute and West Moray which were not proposed by the Commission. That agreement is likely to bring about £2·25 billion to the United Kingdom over the next six years, to all its objective 1 areas, including Northern Ireland.

With regard to political contributions, why is it all one way? What incentives do the Government give to rich Britons to make political contributions to right-wing regimes abroad, or does the whole idea stink?

As I may possibly have said on some previous occasion, I will listen to lectures from such as the hon. Gentleman on that matter when we stop facing the prospect of a position in the Labour party where it will be one man, 2 million votes.