If he intends to introduce penalties or sanctions for non-compliance with charter mark objectives; and if he will make a statement. [39789]

Currently, charter mark holders may have their award withdrawn if they fail to maintain the required standard. We have no plans to introduce penalties or sanctions beyond that.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response, but I plead with him to consider the matter further. I believe that those who have been awarded the charter mark but whose services subsequently fail to come up to standard— there are instances of this— should have their plaques, and any certificates that they have on display, withdrawn. I hope that he will take the matter seriously. Does he agree that, if the standards that the Government have set are to be maintained, it is important that people recognise that their certificates and plaques can be withdrawn?

Before people are awarded a charter mark, they have to undergo a rigorous process— they must meet the nine criteria that are set out; they must be assessed by independent professional assessors; and the award must subsequently be approved by the panel. The charter mark is not easily obtained, and it is awarded for only three years— people must reapply if they want it extended. There is also the sanction of withdrawal in extremis. My hon. Friend may recall the examples of British Gas, which was not up to standard in the service that it offered, and of London Electricity, to which we provided the support, help and advice to enable it once again to attain the standard that we expect of charter mark holders.

Although I appreciate the thrust of the question and response, does the Minister accept that a number of groups involved in hospital care in Northern Ireland that have deservedly been awarded the charter mark have found that, given the pressures under the previous Administration, and even currently, they cannot reach the standards set for waiting lists, for example? I was given to understand that there would be no change in the standards, but I hope that those groups will not be punished if, because of an absence of finance, they cannot meet some of those standards.

I welcome part of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I stress that we maintain very high standards for charter marks. Without such high standards, charter marks would not have the credibility which last year led to 947 applications— an increase of 28 per cent. on the previous year. It is precisely because standards are maintained that so many people apply for a charter mark as a badge of excellence in service quality.

What progress has been made with regard to millennium compliance within Government. [39790]

The progress reports that I published on 3 March show that many central Government organisations have reached the testing stage or, in some cases, completed work. An update on progress will be made in June, when I shall also make available information on progress in the wider public sector.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply and for the work that he and his team are clearly doing to ensure that Departments are millennium compliant by 2000. Does he agree that, as with many private sector businesses, the key to millennium compliance rests with the testing period? He has mentioned that not all Departments have reached that stage. What does he intend to do to ensure that they do, and what further action is planned?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue. Experience in the private sector has shown that difficulties often emerge at the testing stage. I have drawn that to the attention of all my ministerial colleagues and have requested them to undertake internal audits on the tests and to bring in external assessors, so that we have a belt-and-braces approach to the whole affair.

Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had the opportunity to read today's Financial Times, which says that the national health service is failing to act on the millennium bomb? The software house Prove It 2000 has produced a survey showing that more than a third of NHS trusts, hospitals and general practitioner surgeries have spent nothing on ensuring that their systems can cope with the millennium and that, so far, only 24 per cent. of NHS administration systems are millennium compliant. Does he still maintain that the NHS will be ready for the millennium, and is he prepared— right now— to give a Government guarantee that all NHS services will be fully operational by the first week of 2000?

Every health authority and national health service trust has responded to the 31 March 1998 deadline. The summary information from the survey suggests that good progress has been made overall, but, as the hon. Lady said, and as has been reported in the press, a minority of NHS organisations have further work to do. We at the centre of government have decided to monitor the situation, and regional directors will be required to intervene if progress is found to be unsatisfactory in any NHS organisation. If we had inherited a better-prepared plan for tackling the problem when we took office, we would have been better prepared to deal with what one has to admit is an extremely difficult problem which must be solved, no matter what happens, because the year 2000 will surely come.

Will my right hon. Friend make an urgent attempt to point out to several Departments and agencies that there are major problems with their computer systems? There is a problem at the Inland Revenue and a severe problem with air traffic control, and there is clear evidence that some Departments will face the same difficulties. Will he please talk severely to those in charge and say that it is now well beyond the 1 1 th hour, and that the 12th hour may be very painful indeed?

My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the problem has to be solved. We have never pretended that it is easy: it is not. We have established a Cabinet Committee to consider the problem overall, and we are working with Ministers to try to ensure that plans are in place to ensure that Departments are compliant on 1 January 2000. Indeed, we have done more than that: we have published all the details in the Libraries of both Houses and on the internet, and I shall return to the House every three months to give an update on the plans. It is clear that we need to be absolutely open and show the world that we are tackling the problem.

What steps he is taking to encourage exchange of expertise between United Kingdom and Commonwealth civil servants. [39791]

We are keen to encourage the exchange of expertise between the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Governments. There is a range of formal and informal mechanisms through which we exchange expertise with Commonwealth Governments. The Cabinet Office's international public service unit promotes and exports United Kingdom expertise in public sector reform and public administration. The Cabinet Office is also a member of the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration, whose aim is to enhance Commonwealth co-operation in improving managerial competence in government.

I thank my hon. Friend for that full answer. In the light of what he says, is he prepared to have another look at the regulations passed by the previous Government, which effectively prevent Commonwealth citizens from applying for United Kingdom civil service jobs?

I should like to see progress being made in opening up the civil service to selection on merit regardless of nationality— but in a way that does not compromise the United Kingdom's right to reserve posts for its own nationals when necessary. A straightforward reversal of the 1996 rule changes would carry a real risk that the United Kingdom might lose that right. It would lay us open to legal challenges from non-Irish European economic area nationals saying that they had been discriminated against, and an unfavourable judgment in the European Court of Justice might find that we had prejudiced our position by appointing Irish and Commonwealth citizens to reserved posts.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such exchanges are extremely valuable? It is a question not of a civil servant from Australia simply taking the job of an official in England, but of possibilities for officials from both sides to have the opportunity to work in different Government Departments. Does he also agree that it would be valuable to offer places in British Ministries to the occasional European Union official, to give those people a chance to see how our officials work? Might not the presence of a French Enarque in the DHSS do wonders for the administration of British government?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we do not have a Department of Health and Social Security any more; we have two separate Departments, so unless the official were schizophrenic he would have great difficulty. However, the point about reciprocity in such exchanges is well made. We learn as we teach other Governments, and we extend our influence within them.

What background checks are conducted on people who are appointed to public bodies. [39792]

The selection process for public appointments assesses the merit of candidates, their ability to maintain standards in public life, and any potential bars to their appointment. As part of this process, Departments may take up references and make other background checks where that is justified by the nature of the post.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he confident that the requirements in the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and practice in general, are sufficiently rigorous in relation to taking up references? It seems to me that it should be the normal practice to take up references, especially references from most recent employers, for people seeking appointment to public bodies. Would the Minister commend that practice to Ministers in other Departments who make such appointments?

I would certainly commend that practice. I should also point out that the code of practice is working well, and that the commissioner has played an important role in bringing it into effect. I should also tell my hon. Friend that it is for the Department responsible for the public body in question to ensure that the guidance from the Cabinet Office is followed.

Bearing in mind the fact that at least three notable ladies— Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman and Brenda Dean— owed their appointments to health bodies to the previous Government, can the Minister tell the House on how many occasions political allegiance has been taken into account in appointing people to and dismissing people from public bodies over the past year?

A question about political appointments would have been better addressed to the Conservative Government. Under the present Government, appointments are made strictly on the basis of merit, and the overwhelming majority of appointments made are non-political, involving people who make a contribution through public bodies to the public life of this country.

Does the Minister agree that if we are to modernise this country, the CVs of applicants should show that they are not only IT compliant but millennium compliant?

That would be a testing proposition were we to apply it to Conservative Members— we should start with their compliance and computer literacy.

What plans he has to extend his Department's activities in respect of digital communications. [39793]

The key to the Government's approach is flexibility. We see a variety of channels as providing user-friendly access to electronic government services. The Government's target for electronic delivery of services is not dependent on a single technology or delivery channel. Telephone call centres, personal computers, kiosks, other public access terminals and digital broadcasting are all examples of possible delivery channels.

Does the Chancellor accept that it is an accident of history that the means of digital communication, whether by telephone, broadcast, narrowcast, cable and so on, are the responsibility of several Government Departments— his own, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry? What is his personal view on that? Does he not think that it would be better were they encompassed within, and regulated by, one Government Department?

One of the things that shook me most when I took over my office 12 months ago was to find that we had inherited a position whereby Government Departments could not speak to each other electronically. I found that quite staggering in the modern age. One of the matters on which I have spent a great deal of effort over the past 12 months is the installation of a Government secure intranet, which allows Government Departments to interact electronically. Building on that platform, we can have a truly modern Government and, by using information technology, we can deliver services to our citizens at a time and in a manner of their convenience and of their choosing.

When he next intends to visit the Ribble valley to discuss his responsibilities in relation to the Duchy. [39794]

I had the opportunity to pay a visit to the Ribble valley on 1 September 1997 during a tour of the Duchy estates, but I have no plans to pay another visit in the immediate future.

That is a great shame— I hope that the Chancellor will look again at his diary. I do not accept the rubbish written in newspapers to the effect that he is ready for the chop in the Prime Minister's first reshuffle, because I am sure that the Prime Minister has total confidence in him and the work that he has done over the past 12 months. In the many months ahead of him, will he visit the Ribble valley and other parts of the Duchy to get the message across about the fund he has at his disposal that receives money from people who have died intestate, which helps organisations, some of which are in the Ribble valley? Will he give publicity to that fund, so that more organisations will be able to apply for funds from that source?

I know the Ribble valley well and have spent many enjoyable hours on the side of Clougha and around Dunsop bridge. I accept the hon. Gentleman's kind words. I am not a trustee of the benevolent fund, but, since assuming office, I have widened the membership of the trustees of the fund and have requested— the request has been agreed to— that each of the three lords lieutenant in the County Palatine should have advisory committees to help them to make assessments as to how the charitable grants should be disbursed. I shall certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman's point and try to increase the publicity given to the benevolent fund.

I know that my right hon. Friend is anxious to ensure that magistrates represent the areas in which they serve. In the Ribble valley and the whole of the County Palatine, is he getting sufficient nominations to ensure that magistrates benches are representative of their local area?

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. When appointing magistrates, one is required to follow the guideline that one should appoint magistrates who reflect the demographic character of the local population, specifically including the political and religious character. I have to say that, within the County Palatine, there has been a considerable imbalance. That cannot be put right overnight, but we need to make great efforts to ensure that we follow the guidelines. To assist, I have tried to ease up the age of initial appointment, and now, not only in the County Palatine but throughout England, initial appointments to the magistrates bench can be made up to the age of 65, instead of there being a cut-off age of 55. Many people have taken early retirement and have the experience and the knowledge to make good magistrates. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to submit names to the responsible bodies, to try to ensure that that key feature of our magistracy and our legislative system can flourish.

What discussions he has had with the Scottish Office on freedom of information in a Scottish Parliament. [39796]

I have had a number of discussions with Scottish Office colleagues as part of the collective consideration of our freedom of information proposals. It will, however, be for the Scottish Parliament itself to determine freedom-of-information arrangements within the areas devolved to it.

On the non-devolved areas, given the basic nature of members of any parliament, can any of us imagine Members of the Holyrood parliament, of any party, failing to clamour for those extra powers that they think should be theirs by right and then, when they do not get them, blaming the awful "us" at Westminster?

We have made it clear that the freedom of information legislation will apply to the reserved powers and reserved legislation held with the United Kingdom Parliament. We have said that it is up to the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament to decide which freedom of information legislation, if any, they want. There will be nothing to stop the Scottish Parliament adopting the United Kingdom legislation if it feels that that is the right legislation to change the political culture relating to openness and secrecy.

What representations he has received on his proposals to reform the charter programme. [39797]

We are committed to modernising and improving the quality of public services right across the country by focusing on the issues that are most important to the user. As an important step in trying to achieve this, we have consulted widely on the future shape of the charter programme, and have received very positive and helpful responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, far too frequently under the previous Government, citizens charters were not worth the paper they were written on? Far from conferring on citizens new and valuable rights, they were too often carefully erected as barriers to keep the public at bay.

The NCC report was taken seriously by the charter unit within the Cabinet Office. The NCC and many other organisations have been consulting with us on how we should redraft the charters. I should point out that the problem with the previous Government was that they believed that everything was top down. We are taking a different approach. Our recent consultation elicited more than 270 responses from organisations and individuals. I have consulted service providers at the coal face, from as far north as Edinburgh down to Southampton, to find out what they think charters should be about. We have now introduced, at the pilot stage, the people's panel, to find out what the citizens expect of public services.

To what extent he has been able to secure a reduction in EU bureaucracy during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU. [39798]

In March, we had a successful presidency conference in Manchester at which we discussed ways in which we could improve European Union regulations and minimise unnecessary burdens on business and citizens. Out of that came a 10-point plan, which has been welcomed by the Internal Market Council.

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and commend him for his efforts, but is this not yet another example of the Government entering the British presidency with high hopes and good intentions, but of progress sadly being minimal? Will he establish a timetable so that, beyond the Austrian presidency, there is a clear rationale, to which each member state is committed, behind the reduction of bureaucracy and red tape across the European Union?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. At national level, we are trying to move from the heavy-handed approach of the state to light-touch government, which we must achieve if we are to survive as national states in the global economy. Every effort must be made to ensure that the European Union follows the constraints that we have adopted at national level. We clearly could not achieve everything that we wanted within a six-month presidency, so we devised what I thought was a rather cunning plan and persuaded the Austrians, who have the follow-on presidency, to adopt the same theme. We also have the Germans' agreement to carry on for a further six months. I hope that there will thus be an 18-month attempt to cut red tape emanating from Brussels.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an example of a reduction in European Union bureaucracy that has specifically resulted from the application of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, which covers subsidiarity, or of the protocol on subsidiarity of the treaty of Amsterdam?

We are currently working on a complicated issue that affects white electrical goods, which means that such goods in all member states will be compatible.

What consultations he has had with the general public on issues relating to the delivery of public services.[39799]

As part of my better government programme, I am keen to look at government from the point of view of the ordinary citizen. Services should be structured to reflect the needs of citizens, not only to suit service providers. We are putting people first in our attempts to modernise and improve public services. We have carried out extensive consultation with the public and have set up a people's panel, the first in the world. The panel will ensure that, instead of trying to assess the judgment of providers, we know the feelings of ordinary users of public services.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, and especially welcome the people's panel, which provides an opportunity to involve ordinary people in everyday decisions that affect the delivery of their Government services. How will the needs of older people be considered in the panel, given that circumstances and isolation often prevent their views from being taken into account?

Older people are key users of public services. We have recognised the importance of providing joined-up services, which are more accessible and easier to use. Old people find it doubly difficult to queue and queue, and to fill in occasionally unnecessary forms. To simplify that, I have set up the better government for older people programme, which is running across 28 local councils, with the support of Age Concern and the Anchor Housing Trust. In June, I shall also launch "Passport 50 Plus", which is a sort of pensioners charter. It will cover the rights of older people in health care, pensions and benefit, housing, safety and leisure. It is part of the Government's programme to make sure that public services are in line with the needs of our citizens and convenient to them.

I acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Duchy has done a great deal to assist delivery of services through the steps to which he has referred, but has he, in his consultations, received representations about the importance of sustaining the network of post offices and sub-post offices in rural areas, which are the point of contact for service delivery for many people who cannot afford the high petrol prices in such areas and therefore cannot get to main population centres? Will he help to sustain that network?

I am happy to give the assurance that the Government will do all they can to ensure that we protect post offices in both urban and rural areas. With that in mind, we have already installed in a post office in the south-west a kiosk that will allow individuals to conduct a much wider range of public services than those provided purely by a post office. When we publish our White Paper on better government, the right hon. Gentleman will see that we have imaginative proposals which will involve the Post Office in a banking capacity to help in the delivery of services and benefits.

What characteristics of the panel entitle it to be called the people's panel?

The people's panel will replicate demographically the nature of British society. It will allow us for the first time to assess what services the British people want from the Government. It will also allow us to provide the modern services that the British people expect from a modern Government.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 May.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, together with the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), I shall pay a visit to Northern Ireland.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Conservative councils across the country have failed to pass on the £ 2.5 billion that the Government made available for education, unlike Labour-controlled Bolton council, which delivered the full allocation? In those circumstances, how can he ensure that our children all receive a first-class education?

We have provided £835 million in current spending, and £1.3 billion over the Parliament for the school repairs programme. There is a clear difference between Labour councils, which have passed that money on to their schools, and Conservative Essex council, which was given an extra £27 million, but which cut £6 million from its education budget. The answer to the question of how to secure children's education is to vote Labour in the elections.

May I offer the continuing support of the Opposition for the efforts of the Prime Minister today to secure a yes vote in the Northern Ireland referendum, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who contributed so much to this historic opportunity? Does the Prime Minister share our grave concern about last week's IRA statement that it had no intention of decommissioning its arms? In the light of today's reports from Sinn Fein, will he urge Sinn Fein-IRA to sign up to the whole agreement at its meeting this weekend?

Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is important to emphasise that people must sign up to the whole agreement and not to bits and pieces of it. The whole agreement stands as a package, and everyone who says yes to it is saying yes to all the agreement. They cannot say yes to the bits they like and leave aside the bits that they do not like; they must sign up to the agreement in its entirety.

May I welcome what the Prime Minister has said in the past about the need for decommissioning to take place before Sinn Fein members can serve as Ministers in the assembly? I also welcome the assurances that he has given in the past about the conditions to be attached to the early release of prisoners. Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?

It is essential that any agreement is signed up to in full. The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good. I can do no better than to quote the words of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), with which I wholeheartedly agree. In his speech today, when referring to decommissioning, he said:

"When sensitive matters such as prisoner release on licence are discussed— for which, as the Government has made clear, there is no general amnesty— the independent Commission, and the Secretary of State, are bound to have regard as to whether decommissioning has taken place."

Again, I welcome the general assurances that the Prime Minister has been able to give. May 1 urge him to include such provisions in the relevant legislation when it comes before the House? At that time, Opposition Members will argue strongly that the IRA cannot have prisoners released if it does not give up its guns and explosives.

Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course, but it goes further. It is not just a question of decommissioning, but a question of making sure, as the agreement says, that there is a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. What is more, there is provision in the agreement for that to be kept under constant review.

I note from my right hon. Friend's engagements that he will not have much time for his family today, which is his birthday. May I wish him many happy returns? May I also remind him, in regard to family policy, that we inherited from the Tories the longest working hours in Europe, low pay and the worst child care? Can he explain how the Government will help parents to do a good job at work and at home— unlike the Opposition, for whom spending more time with their families means getting the sack?

I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations, although I am getting to the age at which birthdays are a matter of regret. I can tell her two important things that we are doing for the family. First, for working families, there is the family tax credit, which will help families on lower and middle incomes. Secondly, for families in which mothers may not be working— but whether or not they are working— there is a 20 per cent. increase in child benefit. Those two concrete measures will help families. Together with the measures on parental leave, they show that the Government are doing our best to let families balance work and family life.

Does the Prime Minister agree that for Britain to be implicated in covert sales of arms to Sierra Leone, in direct contravention of UN Security Council resolutions, is wholly inconsistent with any believable concept of an ethical foreign policy?

Of course we cannot possibly be in breach of UN resolutions, and that is precisely why the matter was referred to Customs and Excise. I do not want to say more at this stage, but that must be so.

Of course we must wait for the outcome of any inquiry, but does the Prime Minister agree that for his self-declared concept of an ethical foreign policy to have any validity, any official discovered to be implicated would have to be dealt with in an exemplary manner, and any Minister discovered to be implicated would have to resign?

As I said, I do not want to go into what the inquiry may reveal, but of course people cannot possibly deliberately breach UN resolutions, whether they are officials or Ministers. If anyone is found to have done so, disciplinary action will follow.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure effective co-ordination between providers of nursery schooling and the playgroup movement? Does he agree that the playgroup movement has made a fine contribution to British society over the years, and that it took some heavy knocks because of the nursery voucher scheme? Will the new money that his Government are giving to playgroups help their flagging morale?

Yes. The £6 million today will very much help playgroups and others. Of course, they have been badly hit by the nursery voucher scheme. That is one reason why we have replaced it with provisions that allow proper nursery education for all four-year-olds. We will then begin the task of bringing that to three-year-olds as well.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in 1994, the Labour group on Croydon council pledged not to increase the council tax for the life of that council? He speaks a lot about partnerships between Government and local authorities. Who is to blame for that broken promise: the Labour Government or the Labour council?

Croydon council has given excellent value for money to its local residents. The hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that we are within the limits that were applied by his Government when they were in power. However, even within those limits, the services that are being provided by Labour councils, particularly in sectors such as education, are significantly better than those in Conservative councils. That is a matter of fact and another good reason why I hope that people will support their council in Croydon tomorrow.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm three incontrovertible facts? This year, the people of Dudley will see, first, £7 million extra going into Dudley schools' budgets, secondly, a £3 million programme of repairs and improvements to school buildings and, thirdly, a £66 million IT project getting under way under the private finance initiative to wire up every school to the internet as part of the national grid for learning. Do not those three facts demonstrate the Government's commitment to education, education and education, and can we have the same again next year please?

This is all money over and above what the Conservatives were pledged to spend. It is all going into schools, but I give my hon. Friend the fourth incontrovertible fact: Dudley schools have also benefited from £104,000 over and above Tory spending plans on school books.

Will the Prime Minister join me in sending good wishes to the 2nd battalion of the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, which will shortly celebrate its new colours parade at Windsor castle? In doing that, does he agree that the infantry and yeomanry battalions of the Territorial Army provide a disproportionate good to society in terms of both training young people and their town depots, which are the public face of the British Army?

I am happy to pass on my congratulations to those people. I hope that they will welcome the outcome of the strategic defence review that is under consideration. I have no doubt that they, like other people within the defence services, will remember the days when a Conservative Government were in power and defence was cut by 30 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Cambridge city council, which is Labour controlled, on keeping its council tax increases below the rate of inflation, in contrast with Cambridgeshire county council, which is Conservative controlled, the rate increases of which have gone up by more than three times the inflation rate and which, at the same time, has failed to spend all the extra money that has been allocated to it on education? Will he join me in urging voters everywhere tomorrow to look at those value-for-money issues and, of course, to reject resoundingly the Mickey Mouse economics of the Liberal Democrats?

Yes, of course. The fact is that, as we have seen in Essex, with the Conservatives, people get bigger bills with smaller services. I hope that people remember those lessons when they vote tomorrow.

Does the Prime Minister accept that, for at least two years before Britain joined a single currency, the pound would have to shadow the euro?

No, I do not accept that because it is not the case, as the European Commission itself has made clear recently.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister cannot accept that requirement, because it comes from the conclusions of last weekend's meeting of Finance Ministers, which was chaired by the Chancellor. The requirement is clear in the statement— which he, as a Head of Government, supported and approved. Now he says that he will not join the euro in this Parliament, and that he will not shadow the euro. Will he give a guarantee that, during this Parliament, he will not instruct the Bank of England to shadow the euro?

There is no instruction to shadow the euro, and I have no intention of giving such an instruction. The point that the right hon. Gentleman is making on the exchange rate mechanism is simply wrong. Italy, for example, is being allowed to go forward in monetary union, despite not having been a member of the exchange rate mechanism for two years.

Italy joined the ERM in November 1996, and will have been a member of it for two years when the single currency is created. It is no wonder that the Italian Prime Minister said that the Prime Minister was ill prepared for last weekend's meeting. Is it not clear that, to prepare for entry to the single currency, we have to shadow the euro? Will that not entail instructing the Bank of England to target a certain exchange rate, rather than to control inflation in Britain? Is it not clear that that is what the Government will have to do in this Parliament, to enable any Government to enter the single currency early in the next Parliament— as the Chancellor intends, although the Prime Minister is afraid to say so? Is it not time that the Prime Minister— particularly after last weekend's fiasco in Brussels, over which he presided— came clean about his intentions on the matter and told the British people the truth?

No. If I may correct the right hon. Gentleman on a point of detail, he was wrong about Italy. The fact is that the two-year period would end in May— which was when the decision was taken. It is, therefore, wrong to suggest that Italy fulfilled the two-year period. A few weeks ago, the European Commission report made that fact clear. The right hon. Gentleman's other point on shadowing the euro was absolute nonsense, as there is no such requirement. The test of our ability to join monetary union is whether we have sustainable economic convergence—which is judged, although not absolutely, according to the criteria in the Maastricht treaty. Those criteria are taken into account when deciding whether there is sustainable economic convergence. Therefore, his point— that we have to shadow the euro before going into monetary union— is simply wrong.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating both staff and councillors at the Labour-controlled South Tyneside council— which was named in Sunday's report in The Observer as the best council in the country— on providing the best services and the most efficient management? On behalf of those very hard-working staff and councillors, will he also ask for an apology from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who, on a recent visit to south Tyneside, openly criticised how the council was run? Does not the council's success show what we have always known: that the Tories have never been able to run local government; that the Liberal Democrats will promise the earth but deliver nothing in local government; and that only Labour-controlled local government provides the type of services that the people not only need, but expect?

The lesson is absolutely clear: if people want both prudent finance and decent public services, vote Labour tomorrow.

Will the Prime Minister also congratulate Aberdeenshire council, which has the great fortune not only of not having an election tomorrow, but of not having a single Labour councillor on the council? On a more serious point, does the Prime Minister recall that, on 25 February, he said that he wanted to see the benefits— especially the jobs— that come from investment in the oil industry? Does he realise how dependent the economy not only of Aberdeenshire, but of the rest of the country is on investment in the oil industry? Does he realise also that one thing that anyone making an investment decision would like to have is some certainty in planning for the future? As the Government have indicated a wish to take more tax out of the industry—but have not yet said how they will do so, and seem to be delaying publication of their consultation on the matter— will he give some assurance to the industry that he realises that stability is crucial in getting money and investment into the economy of the north-east?

The oil industry currently has an enormously favourable tax regime. However, we are well aware of the importance of oil companies to investment in the hon. Gentleman's region. I think that oil companies probably welcome the fact that there will be consultation on the new regime— that we have not simply implemented it without consultation, but are saying that there should be proper consultation before it is implemented. The hon. Gentleman will find that most companies welcome that consultation rather than decry it.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares the anguish and concern felt by the British public when they see the children of Sudan dying on television before their eyes. The immediate concern is no longer that of access, according to UNICEF to which I spoke this morning, but the shortage of food, the shortage of money to buy supplies and the shortage of aeroplanes. Thousands of children are at immediate risk. Cannot we do more to help them?

The situation in Sudan is a great tragedy. It has come about as a result of the long-running civil war, which has resulted in food shortages and drought. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has announced a £4 million pledge towards the 1998 United Nations appeal for Sudan. More than £800,000 has already been provided to the Save the Children Fund, and £200,000 has been given to UNICEF's nutrition programme for Sudan. A further £1.25 million has been allocated through the European Communities programme. As we hold the presidency of the European Council, we have issued a statement urging all parties to the talks to adopt a positive attitude and come to an agreement. In the end, it is only if there is a ceasefire in place that this aid can get through and we can start to rebuild the shattered lives of the people in that region. No one who has seen the pictures and the tragedy of what is happening can be anything other than deeply alarmed and concerned. That is why we are trying to get more money to the region and also trying to make the diplomatic moves necessary to establish the ceasefire.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the concern expressed in all parts of the House and in the House of Lords about the proposals to downgrade the Territorial Army. Will he consider America, Australia and some of the other countries with which he is familiar, and note the greatly increased role that they have found for their citizen combat forces? May I suggest that there is more at stake than just the essential pride that communities feel in their own territorial forces, and that also at stake is this country's ability to regenerate a substantial force in the event of an unforeseen conflict?

I have to say that the hon. Gentleman's party was responsible for cutting the Territorial Army considerably. Of course we understand the importance of the Territorial Army. It obviously has a key role to play, but it should be a role fit for the modern world. That is why the strategic defence review is under way. It is considering all our defence forces and how they best fit into the strategic demands of the modern world. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will save his comments until we publish that review. I think he will find that, unlike the previous Government who simply cut the defence expenditure and forces— and cut them savagely— we are trying to make sense of modern defence forces and a foreign policy for the modern world.

Given that many of Britain's beaches are still badly polluted with sewage, that raw sewage regularly finds its way into our rivers, that untreated sewage is still spread on farmland and that the water companies have made massive profits in recent years, will my right hon. Friend give a clear instruction to the water regulator that we want these environmental problems fixed, and fixed quickly, and that the water companies can do that without putting up their prices?

The Director General of Ofwat is currently examining how best to ensure that the investment is forthcoming without harm to consumers, and we are spending £2 billion bringing bathing water up to the EU average. However, it is important to make sure that any investment has a significant and direct impact, and that it has it quickly. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is making sure that the water companies and local authorities are working closely together on that.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Italian gross domestic product, as published by the International Monetary Fund, incorporates the underground economy, which is by definition unmeasurable, so Italy's debt to gross domestic product ratio is false, misleading and grossly understated?

The matter was investigated by the European Commission and the European Monetary Institute, which both found in favour of Italy being allowed to join monetary union. The Conservative party, however, should be a little more honest with itself—or at least the part of the Conservative party that is opposed to Europe. It is opposed to the euro under any conditions and, truthfully, it is opposed to any country being in the euro. It is opposed to Britain being in the euro on any basis. Some nod, some shake their heads. That is the Tory party. The criticisms of people such as the hon. Gentleman, who in truth are viscerally opposed to everything European, do not carry a great deal of weight with me or anyone else.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my local borough council, which has set the second lowest council tax in the north-west and ensures that the extra money that it has been allocated for education goes to schools? Unfortunately, we do not have annual council elections this year, but there is a by-election. My right hon. Friend may be surprised to know that the Conservatives have been unable to find a candidate to fight that seat. Is it a case of Tory incompetence or is it pure surrender?

The Conservatives are not putting up a candidate for more than 240 council seats. That may be a wise, strategic judgment on their part. However, it is important to emphasise again that if people want the money given to local authorities for education to go to schools, the record shows that Labour councils get that money to the schools and Conservative councils do not.