To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on how the changes to the disability living allowance regulations have affected current NHS patients. [18384]

None. I have received copies of three letters to the Department of Social Security.

Does the Minister agree that reducing or abolishing mobility payments will have an adverse effect on the lives of disabled people everywhere?

The hon. Gentleman is not one of the three people who have written to me about that subject. I am not surprised because, as an experienced Member of Parliament, he will know that it is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

This is an important matter for 6.5 million disabled people. Do the Government accept that getting the issue right, in co-operation with the Disablement Income Group, will affect those who suffer from spinal cord injuries, for example? They are not supported by the national health service trusts, which have let them down by not making available the kind of services that they need. Why should disabled people pay for the Government's incompetence and insensitivity?

The question on the Order Paper is not a matter for the Department of Health. The hon. Gentleman has raised issues that relate to my Department, which will play a full part in looking after the interests of disabled people, as he well knows. We have legislation on direct payments before Parliament and—as the hon. Gentleman might have had the grace and courtesy to remind the House and the public—only a few days ago we announced the introduction of the new powered indoor-outdoor wheelchair service for severely disabled people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many known cases of organophosphate poisoning in England and Wales in 1994 and 1995 were notified to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [18385]

Suspected adverse reactions involving veterinary medicines are notified to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and those involving pesticides to the Health and Safety Executive, and my Department is informed. Some 47 suspected adverse reactions to organophosphate sheep dips were reported in 1994 and 40 provisionally in 1995 in the United Kingdom. There were 29 cases of suspected organophosphate poisoning from pesticides in Great Britain in 1993–94 and 43 in 1994–95. My Department will shortly be publishing updated guidance for doctors on pesticide poisoning, which includes a reminder of the notification schemes.

I take no comfort from the Minister's answer, bearing in mind the fact that, since 1985, the Health and Safety Executive has made it a notifiable occurrence. Before long, the Government will be viewed by history as another Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned. While the Department of Health has played ping-pong with the subject—throwing it back and forth to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—thousands of people in England, Wales and Scotland have fallen ill with that terrible disease. When will the Department get to grips with the problem by ensuring that those substances are banned and compensating the thousands of people who have suffered as a result of the illness?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Veterinary Products Committee, which is the appropriate authority, has always said that the pesticides should not be banned. As I said in my original reply, we are issuing new guidance to doctors. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Government are considering the Select Committee report on the matter and taking it very seriously.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the British Medical Association about the work load of nurses. [18386]

I have not recently met the BMA specifically on the subject of nurses' work load. I am, however, in frequent contact with the medical profession and we discuss a wide range of health issues.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the new deal for junior hospital doctors can be implemented only with the co-operation of the nursing profession as nurses must adapt their role and take on new responsibilities? Is it not unfair that nurses should be awarded a pay increase of only 2 per cent. whereas junior hospital doctors are to receive an increase of 4.3 to 5.8 per cent?

I certainly acknowledge that the implementation of the new deal has implications for the nursing work load as well as that of junior doctors. I might have hoped that, in mentioning the implementation of the new deal, the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the 2,400 new doctor posts that were created under that programme. The hon. Gentleman referred to a 2 per cent. pay increase for nurses. As he knows, that is not the position. As the review body recommended, the Government accepted the proposition that nurses' pay should be negotiated locally, subject to a floor of 2 per cent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome that will be given to the steps that the Government have taken to ease the work load of junior doctors? Will he confirm that there is now 99 per cent. compliance with the targets to reduce on-call contracted hours for junior doctors to 72 hours per week?

Order. The question relates to the work load of nurses.

I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker. I thought that it related to work loads within hospitals—a matter that has been raised by the BMA. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to doctors in his supplementary question.

As I said to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), the implementation of the new deal affects the work load of nurses. My hon. Friend is right to say that the new deal for junior doctors has led to a dramatic reduction in the absurdly extended hours that junior doctors used to work. The review body on nurses also reported:

"The allocation of resources for the NHS for 1996–97 means that most providers should be able to reward staff for improvements in efficiency and effectiveness while delivering increased volume of quality of care to patients."

Is the Secretary of State aware that the hospital trusts in Leeds have sent all nurses a letter saying that, from 1 April, they will be covered by new and independent bodies and that their terms and conditions could change? Will it not be the case that in future nurses will be held in reserve and hired and fired on zero-hour contracts that will undermine the profession as young potential nurses will not want to join a profession that has no apparent career structure?

No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on virtually every count. By agreement with the unions, new nurses joining the NHS are being recruited on local contracts. The holders of existing national contracts continue to benefit from the terms of those national contracts and the trusts continue to be bound by them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we have the best and most professional nurses in the world in our national health service and that we have recognised the special work that they do by the independent pay review body, although there is now an element of local pay bargaining? Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some concern that, because of the pressure under which nurses are now obliged to work, some people believe that we are taking the care out of nursing and that only the treatment matters when, in a vocational profession such as nursing, care is equally as important as the treatment?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we are blessed in the health service with an immensely dedicated nursing work force, among other professions in the service, and to stress the broader aspects of care for which nurses are famed and their contribution respected. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that, since 1979, at a time when earnings in the rest of the economy have risen 36 per cent. in real terms, the Government have seen nurses' earnings rise by a total of 70 per cent. over the same period. That shows the value that we attach to the nursing profession.

Will the Secretary of State stop being complacent and admit that the British Medical Association is concerned, as we are, about the effect on patients of a shortage of nurses and doctors in accident and emergency departments? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are in most A and E departments shortages of specialist nurses, junior doctors, middle-grade doctors and even consultants? What action does the Secretary of State plan?

The hon. Lady is still playing the record that she played before Christmas, and she has been proven wrong by events. Before Christmas, the hon. Lady said that we would run into a shortage of junior doctors in A and E departments. I told the House last week that we conducted an audit on the subject a few weeks ago and found that 5 per cent. of junior doctor posts in A and E departments were vacant. The hon. Lady was wrong before Christmas and she remains wrong now.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had over the future of the independent sector hospitals in the provision of health care. [18387]

I have met representatives from the Independent Healthcare Association and individual independent health care companies from time to time, to discuss issues of concern to the independent sector.

My hon. Friend may know that the third largest independent hospital in this country is Benenden hospital in Kent, originally founded for postal workers and their families. Despite the fact that Unison has questioned whether that represents a two-tier system, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he has no intention of denying choice and diversity to trade union and Labour party members who continue to use that excellent hospital for health care outside the national health service?

It is rather good to see the words of partnership in the bible that was published 10 days ago by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) being put into practice by some Labour party members. That particular aspect of the mixed economy in health care is welcome, and I am sure that it will endure.

Will the Minister confirm that NHS hospitals have been asked to reduce waiting lists in the period leading to the next general election to 12 months wherever possible and that, as a result, Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge has been contracting patients into private hospitals, including the BUPA hospital in Norwich? Why cannot the NHS provide for NHS patients?

I find it extraordinary that the hon. Lady attacks us for reducing NHS waiting lists. I understood that it has been accepted by the Labour party that we have partnership in health care. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that where value for money and effective treatment can be obtained in the private sector, that should be denied to patients, I hope she will explain why to her constituents, who would be denied the sort of health care that they are now receiving if the hon. Lady were ever to get into office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease in England in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [18388]

I am pleased to report that the trend in coronary heart disease is in the right direction. Mortality rates for CHD in people under 65 fell by 25 per cent. between 1987 and 1992. Since "The Health of the Nation" report in 1992, the trend has continued with falls of 10.7 per cent. in CHD mortality for under 65s and 7.7 per cent. for the 65 to 74 age group between 1993 and 1994. Progress, therefore, is very encouraging.

The figures that my hon. Friend has given to the House are extremely encouraging, but can he confirm that there are still 140,000 deaths from coronary heart disease every year? Given that fact, how can the Government build on the success so far of "The Health of the Nation" strategy to convince that proportion of the population that continues to believe that it is immortal that that is not the case, and that sensible diet and exercise are worth while?

My hon. Friend is right. Coronary heart disease is still the major killer and my advice to everyone is to take more regular physical exercise. The House is not setting a good example. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, of the excellent facilities in the Boothroyd studio over the road in the Westminster gym. It is not well used by Members of Parliament and I say to everybody, "Get physical, release your endorphins and feel the stimulus of exercise. Look after your heart and your heart will look after you."

What has the Minister to say about a recent Audit Commission report which says that access to coronary bypass operations depends on where one happens to live?

That is not the case. I have seen the report in question, but I shall certainly look at it again. If that is the hon. Gentleman's impression of the report, it is contrary to mine.

While it is true that moderate exercise is very good for the health and for the prevention of coronary disease, does my hon. Friend believe that it is reasonable to ask young people to bicycle nine miles to school every day, perhaps to a school in my hon. Friend's constituency? Is it reasonable for parents to ask children to travel those nine miles?

My hon. Friend has a very real point.

I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that, after the next election, Conservative Members will have more time to do any exercise that they choose. Will the Minister accept that, as 18,000 people die of coronary heart disease every year, we should be making a bigger effort to reduce those figures by more preventative measures and more treatment? Will the Minister also accept that a recently published report by the House of Commons Library shows that 40 per cent. of the district health authorities in England will not make the reduced target of 40 per cent. by 2000? Is not it a disgrace that people on waiting lists are dying because they cannot have access to a bypass operation? When will the Government stop being complacent and introduce policies that will address the real issues in the national health service?

If that is the case, I hope that I can count on the partnership of the hon. Gentleman in our Health Education Authority campaign, "Active for Life", which starts next week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me to promote good habits.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the targets set in "The Health of the Nation" in respect of encouraging (a) exercise and (b) a healthy life style. [18389]

Good progress has been made on both.

"The Health of the Nation" report rightly stresses the importance of physical activity and exercise—to follow on from the last question. Will my hon. Friend speak to his colleagues at the Departments of Transport, of the Environment, and for Education and Employment and ask them to encourage people to walk and to bicycle rather than to use private cars? Will my hon. Friend note especially that only 2 per cent. of schoolchildren in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), as elsewhere, now bicycle to school, whereas a huge number travel by private car? Does my hon. Friend believe that the House could set a better example and can he think of anybody who could set a better example in physical exercise?

I cannot think what my hon. Friend means. The basic thrust of his energetic question is right. Moderate exercise is what is required, and a modest increase in the level of exercise taken by all of us would be beneficial. School sports certainly have a part to play— which is why it is such a pity that, not so many years ago, Labour authorities such as the Inner London education authority banned competitive sports.

In "The Health of the Nation", published in 1992, the Government set a target for reducing smoking by 11 to 15-year-olds by 33 per cent. within two years—by 1994. In fact, over that period smoking in that age group that rose by 20 per cent, according to a survey at the end of last year—especially among girls. When will the Government follow the advice of the chief medical officer and support a ban on tobacco advertising? When will they support the Bill which hon. Members on both sides of the House, including me, are promoting to discourage youngsters from smoking? Without that, youngsters will keep smoking throughout adult life and kill themselves much earlier.

It is certainly true that not smoking is part of a healthy life style, but the hon. Gentleman is not quite right about 11 to 15-year-olds. Over the 10 years to 1994, there was a slight decrease in smoking among young boys, while the figure for young girls remained steady. That is not good enough; I want to reduce the numbers.

With regard to the target set in "The Health of the Nation", will my hon. Friend encourage and commend the work of district nurses, community health nurses and school nurses, especially those employed by the Fosse health trust in Leicestershire, who have done a tremendous amount of work to encourage all sections of the community, from schoolchildren to elderly people, to take moderate, healthy exercise so as to fulfil the targets to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred?

My hon. and learned Friend is right. We seek not a maoist regime of collective physical jerks but an informed society of people with the facts about exercise and life styles, who can then decide for themselves and their families what to do. There is clear evidence, as my hon. and learned Friend rightly says, that the nursing community plays its part in this. If we can get across the message about moderate exercise, moderate drinking, knowing how to cope with stress, and cutting out tobacco and drugs, we shall end up with a healthier nation that will meet "The Health of the Nation" targets.

The targets for smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds set by "The Health of the Nation" were for a total of 6 per cent., but the figure is currently double that, so the Government are clearly failing to dissuade teenagers from starting to smoke. On the eve of national no-smoking day, what further action do the Government propose to take, given that they are clearly failing our young people?

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to national no-smoking day, which we confidently expect to lead to another 40,000 people giving up. He will also want to welcome the work being done in the campaign to persuade people to stop smoking, or not to start it, and in the three-year campaign, about to start in April, aimed at young people. The Government, the health service and the nation make tremendous efforts to persuade young people to understand the facts about smoking; and we reinforce that with a price mechanism which results in part from the Chancellor's commitment to an annual 3 per cent. real terms increase in tobacco prices. Price and example are the ways to stop young people smoking and persuade them not to start.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the oldest person in the world, Jeanne Calment, recently celebrated her 121st birthday and reportedly gave up smoking at the age of 117? Does he think that there are lessons in that for a healthy life style? If so, what are they?

I suspect that the message is to give up smoking at least four years before becoming the oldest person in the world.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what adjustments he plans to make in the basis of the capitation formula for funding district health authorities. [18392]

The weighted capitation formula is kept under constant review, and a number of refinements are planned over the next few years.

Does the Minister agree that, even with the York refinements, the present formula is unsatisfactory, as shown by the fact that, until recently, a psychiatric consultant in Newham was dealing with a case load that was double the national average? Does the Minister agree that the 12 per cent. that is allocated to psychiatric care is unrealistic and that the 24 per cent. allocated to community care is inadequate? Should not whatever cake that is provided by the Treasury be divided equitably and be seen to have been so?

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but we are refining the formula continually. On his point about psychiatric care, we are developing the index for community health services. It may not quite be ready for the next allocation, but none the less work is being done on it, which, I am sure, will benefit his area.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister's efforts to persuade public bodies and others to use the funding with which they are provided to pay the bills of those who supply the NHS will be welcomed by those suppliers? Does my hon. Friend recall that, in 1975, under a Labour Government, when inflation was running at 27 per cent., there was no inducement to pay bills promptly, and hospital treasurers referred to 31 March as the longest day in the year, because they did not close their books on 31 March, and did not pay their bills until the end of April?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I certainly agree that the Prime Minister's initiative yesterday to publish a list of shame of Departments and the way in which they dealt with small companies is appropriate. I hope that the Department of Health will not come at the bottom of that list.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many projects for health facilities in England are currently subject to consideration under the private finance initiative. [18393]

All capital investment proposals in the national health service are considered for suitability for private finance as part of the capital planning process.

Will the Secretary of State accept that some projects and locations are singularly inappropriate for private finance? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will not impose private finance criteria on inappropriate projects, thereby delaying them for long periods when they could have made rapid progress?

I acknowledge that there are schemes for which public capital continues to be necessary. That is why there is still a huge public capital investment programme in the NHS. I also believe it true that the private finance initiative offers us the best opportunity that we have had in the history of the NHS to bring the facilities of the health service up to date and to give the best possible opportunity to the professions working in it to use modern technology and modern facilities to deliver the best health care to our patients.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the PFI is one of the great NHS successes? Bearing in mind its success, would he like to open a book as to when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) might decide on this one to change tack again, to follow her leader and to back the PFI?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's assertion that the PFI is an exciting thing happening in the health service.

Nothing has happened.

The hon. Lady might like to take into account the fact that, over the past 10 years, despite the fact that the capital programme has been much bigger than it ever was under the previous Government, more than 10 projects—costing more than £25 million—have been given the go-ahead. That is 10 projects in 10 years. I have given the go-ahead to two more projects over the past three months. The hon. Lady knows that another 23 such projects are currently being assessed in the NHS. She seems to think it surprising that a project for which we announced a go-ahead in principle three months ago, costing £40 million, has not yet been signed in every particular. She is virtually unique in thinking that.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the tenders have gone out for the building of the new Halifax general hospital, and Tarmac, Mediclean or another company will presumably get the contract. Will he, first, give us his definition of clinical services and, secondly, give the people of Halifax a guarantee that their clinical services will not be put out to tender or run by such private companies?

I have given the assurance many times that I shall not approve private finance projects, the viability of which depend on clinical or clinical support services being delivered by the private contractor, unless there is clinical support locally for that particular scenario. That has been the position in the health service for many years now and I do not propose to change it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents can now use a magnetic resonance imaging facility in the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust? It used a modified PFI, setting up a non-profit-making private company to provide that facility. Is that not tremendous news and a great example to every trust throughout the country?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What he recounts is good news for his constituents and it is good news for every citizen of the United Kingdom because it shows the way by which we will be able progressively to improve the capital stock of the NHS. My hon. Friend is a trail-blazer. My hon. Friends will all want to follow where he has led.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many increases there have been in prescription charges since 1979. [18394]

Sixteen.

If I had not heard that answer of 16 prescription increases from the lips of a Minister of the Crown, I simply would not have believed it. Does the Minister recall that in 1979 the prescription charge was 20p and, if that had been raised in line with inflation, it would still have been only 51p today instead of £5.50? Is it not also a fact that most of the commonly prescribed drugs cost less than the prescription charge? Prescription charges are a rip-off and, what is more, they are an inefficient rip-off. What miserable, pathetic, cringing excuse has the Minister to offer?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I have a few facts which might put what he has been saying in perspective. First, I hope that he understands that prescription charges will contribute £310 million next year to health care. How, if the hon. Gentleman were choosing to modify that policy, would he replace those funds? I hope that he also understands that the average cost of a prescribed item is £9.30, so the prescription charge is two thirds the average cost of the prescribed item. Those are important contributions to NHS health care. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might well welcome them.

While my hon. Friend is asked to take tablets of scorn from Opposition Members, will he accept a dose of pride from Conservative Members? What other country in the world has 80 per cent. of all its prescription charges, regardless of cost, completely free to patients?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of that fact, but that is last year's figure. I am pleased to tell him that, according to next year's estimates, that figure will increase to 85 per cent.

Where did the Minister get that figure of £9 from? Has he taken the highest prescription cost and the lowest to get that average, or has he taken the average of the pyramid of all drugs?

The figure of £9.30 is an average of all items that are prescribed. I am delighted to confirm that the charge still represents good value for money for what those who make the contribution to the NHS pay. If it is put in perspective, it will be seen by the country to be very good value indeed.

Will my hon. Friend remind us who introduced prescription charges and who, after abolishing them briefly, reintroduced them at a higher rate? Will he also tell us by how much prescription charges are likely to fall under a Labour Government after a careful examination of the policy documents put out by the Labour party?

On the second point, my hon. Friend will get absolutely no answer from the Opposition. He is right: he need look no further than the Opposition to find the answers to his first two questions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of 15-year-old girls who smoke regularly. [18395]

The survey conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that, in 1994, 30 per cent. of 15-year-old girls reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

One of the Government's reasons for not banning tobacco advertising is that it has little effect on young people taking up smoking, so why are the Government spending £800,000 on advertising smoking's dangers to teenagers? I know that that is a small amount of money, but if it has no effect, why bother to spend it?

We do not say that advertising has no effect, which is why we have gone to great lengths to reach a voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry. That agreement has successfully reduced advertising at places where young people are. There has been a 70 per cent. cut in poster advertising. We have cut shop-front and bus advertising. There are controls on advertising within 200 m of a school and close to playgrounds. Price and example are the two key ways to stop young people smoking. The hon. Lady should recall that in Spain, where smoking is a major problem, the price of cigarettes is 56p a pack, but in this country it is £2.74 a pack. Since 1990, consumption of cigarettes here has decreased by 15 billion cigarettes a year. That is the way to success.

It is of course right for Ministers to encourage a healthy life style, as my hon. Friends have been doing this afternoon, but is it not also their duty to discourage people, especially young people, from smoking? My hon. Friend has enumerated a number of factors, but there is ample evidence that advertising is also a factor. Why do the Government resolutely set their face against the advice that they have received to impose a ban on tobacco product advertising?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that we must go on seeking to influence young people, but the evidence that we have received is that a total ban on advertising would not be effective. The voluntary 'route that we and the Netherlands have followed is effective. We have had clear evidence that we need to go on educating young people about tobacco, keeping the price up, and encouraging parents and others to stop smoking, because smoking parents often lead to smoking children. That is the purpose of our campaigns, which have led to decreases in the number of people who smoke. Whereas in 1974, 45 per cent. of people smoked, in 1992 that figure had fallen to 28 per cent.

If the Minister is serious about this, why is it that prescription charges, for medicines that people need, have gone up faster than cigarette prices, for drugs that people do not need?

That is a totally different question. We have one question about people who can afford to pay contributing to the cost of their medication—with, as we have heard, a colossal exemption in this country for people who cannot afford to—and another about ways of encouraging people not to smoke because it can harm their health. The price of cigarettes and the example set by parents, older brothers and sisters and other role models are crucial in winning that battle.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning general practitioner fundholding in Lichfield. [18396]

Fundholding has brought considerable benefits to the people of Lichfield—not least improved physiotherapy and day care services at Victoria hospital. I expect all general practitioners in Lichfield to be fundholding from April.

Does my hon. Friend recall the prophetic words of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) when she said that general practitioners do not support the concept of fundholding? Does not the fact that, by April, every GP in Lichfield will be a fundholder show that she was just a false prophet?

The hon. Lady wishes to abolish fundholding not only for everyone in Lichfield who will be served by it from April but for everyone else. The example in Lichfield is being followed in the rest of the country. From April, fundholding will cover more than 50 per cent. of England's population.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds his Department grants to medical research. [18398]

Expenditure from my Department's budget devoted to research and development in 1995–96 is expected to total £454 million. As well as the centrally funded programmes of research, that includes NHS expenditure on research and research-related activities. We are currently implementing the recommendations of the Culyer report, which are designed to strengthen our commitment to research and development.

When will my right hon. Friend and the Government spend much more on the hundreds of thousands of children who suffer from autism? Does not that subject need more Government funds?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of research and development to the future of mental health services. It is for exactly that reason that the directorate of research and development has said that it intends to use its increasing budget to commit extra resources to research and development in the broader field of mental health.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a league table of deregulation initiatives from each Government Department. [18414]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the further measures that I announced yesterday on simplified tax registration, new rights for business against enforcement action and simplified planning and development controls. I have arranged for a copy of details of the number of regulations repealed or amended by each Department to be placed in the Library.

I understand my right hon. Friend's reluctance to cover the walls of No. 10 Downing street with deregulation league tables. If he did so, however, it would highlight the difference between his approach to small firms and that of the Opposition, which will certainly increase the number of rules and regulations emanating not only from this country but from Europe. Will my right hon. Friend boost his own excellent approach by promoting Ministers—and, indeed, Back Benchers—who have good ideas on deregulation, and demoting those who have not? Perhaps he will have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, suggesting that he take similar action with his Front Benchers.

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of deregulation. We have undertaken comprehensive consultation with small businesses, and, as a result of what they had to say to us, we have set out a comprehensive range of action which will, I believe, have been welcomed across the small business sector. I very much regret the necessity to place extra burdens on business sometimes, but we are utterly resolute in not accepting burdens such as the social chapter which would undoubtedly make the country inefficient and cost us jobs. Small firms are the life-blood of the economy, and they deserve our support.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March. [18415]

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that last Thursday he gave the House the clear impression that the Government had no intention of taking away the employment protection rights of 10 million workers in private businesses? The very same day, he was contradicted by the Deputy Prime Minister. Who really speaks for the Government, and what is the true position?

In no sense did my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister contradict what I said yesterday. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but noise from the Opposition does not make them right; they are just as wrong whether they are noisy or silent.

As the referendum is an alien concept inconsistent with our system of representative parliamentary democracy, would it not be a mistake to change the Government's policy on the issue? On a single currency referendum, does my right hon. Friend agree that a single currency, in the sense that every member of the European Union gives up its own currency in favour of it, is not likely to happen before the next general election, the one after or the one after that and that a referendum on a core currency, which would split the Union, is even less likely to produce a sensible result?

As I have said to the House before, let me say again to my right hon. Friend that there are circumstances in which we think that it might be appropriate to have a referendum on the particular matter of whether this country should decide to join a single currency, were one to go ahead in 1999. I have made that point to the House before; that is a matter under consideration and it remains so.

Does the Prime Minister recall that he used to be flatly against a referendum on a single currency and then—

Tell us your policies.

Order. Mr. Ashby, you are not at a football match now.

And then the Prime Minister's position changed to say that the question of whether to have a referendum would not arise until after a British Cabinet had recommended joining a single currency. That was the position reiterated a few days ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer: it would be postponed until the decision about the single currency. Is that still the Government's position?

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to swap quotes on these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If the House is patient, I will come directly to the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I remind him, on the subject of consistency, that he once said:

"we'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC".

"wasn't actually opposed to membership of the EC … I said at the election, within the closed doors of the Labour Party, that I disagreed with that policy on Europe."

The right hon. Gentleman did not actually tell us whether the Chancellor's position remains the position of the Government. Can I put this question to him? Is it still his view that collective responsibility during the course of such a referendum would still apply?

The fact is, on the first point, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor was with me and agreed in Cabinet to the examination that we are undertaking. The examination that we are undertaking covers not only the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised but a series of other important points that would need to be clear were such a decision to be taken.

So everything is up for review. The right hon. Gentleman used to be flatly against a referendum; now he cannot say. He used to be in favour of collective responsibility; now he cannot say. Is it not the truth that on this issue—[Interruption.] They do not like it, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman now cannot say on either issue. Is it not the truth that, on this issue, as in so many other areas, he is no longer able to be a Prime Minister taking these decisions in the interests of the country but is simply a full-time party manager trying to manage irreconcilable factions in his own party?

One of these days, the right hon. Gentleman will learn to quit when he is losing. [Interruption.] He just made it perfectly clear that he has no interest in collective responsibility, no interest in Cabinet government and no interest in the Cabinet discussing these matters—which is precisely what his Back Benchers say about the way in which he determines his own policies. When he has had a little more experience, he will realise that that will never work in government.

Is it not fantastic that the European Court, the European Commission and the leader of the Labour party should be so hellbent on pricing British and European workers out of jobs and exporting those jobs to the Pacific rim? If people in this country choose, of their own volition, to work 48 hours or more a week, why on earth should not they be allowed to do so?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I strongly disagree with the ruling of the Advocate General this morning. We have one of the best records on health and safety at work across Europe. I do not believe that the working time directive can make any significant contribution to health and safety. We shall continue to argue the case that these matters are best agreed between employers and employees in the light of their own circumstances.

So why did not the Prime Minister and the Government vote against the directive in the Council of Ministers? As the Prime Minister is in the business of swapping quotes, I shall remind him of two. In June 1992 he said to me, "I am not in favour of referendums and I will not put one before the British people." Last week he said, "I have never changed my view—it remains that a referendum might be the course of action to take."

The right hon. Gentleman will know that his hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has in the past admitted the differences in their party on the question of a referendum. He knows that there are sharp differences. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he favours a referendum on this issue. He should not be so uncharacteristically modest—has it not occurred to him that his splendid advocacy might just possibly change my hon. Friends' minds?

If my right hon. Friend has the good fortune to bump into Sir James Goldsmith, will he remind him that, although he might think that wealth can buy privilege, it does not buy Members of Parliament and it does not buy Governments?

The only things for sale in this House are Labour party policies to the trade unions. [Interruption.] The deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), says, "Change the computer." We would like him to change the fact that half the Labour party's policies are determined by the trade unions, that most of its money comes from the trade unions, that it is the handmaiden of the trade unions and that it has no independence. The trade unions pay for the Labour party and they own it—it was that way, it is that way and it always will be that way.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 March. [18416]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister remember saying in April 1992, "Vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday"? When he became Prime Minister, the unemployment figure was 1,754,811, but in January this year it was 2,224,207. They are his figures. What went wrong?

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has gone right with our economy, and he can then compare what has happened in this country with what has happened in other countries. If he is worrying about what has gone wrong, he should look at Liverpool council to get an indication. The leader of the Labour party said, I think, to The Spectator some time ago that one does not know the character of a party until it is in power. We have seen Labour in power in Liverpool council, and we know exactly the character of the Labour party.