What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on additionality and match funding in connection with objective 1 European structural funds; and if he will make a statement. [103487]

I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including objective 1. The provision of match funding will continue to be the responsibility of the grant applicant. That ensures local ownership and commitment to the projects. Additionality of European structural funds support is measured at the level of the member state, as set out in the structural funds regulations.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he, however, take this opportunity to assure all potential investors in objective 1 schemes in Wales whose projects are on hold because of the Government's lack of commitment to provide full match funding, in order that the projects can progress and the best be made of the funding?

I have made the Government's position very clear in the House and to the hon. Gentleman on numerous occasions: the spending review that has begun will address the issue between now and July. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear his commitment to the success of the scheme. I remind the House that it was my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who obtained objective 1 status for Wales in the first place. Anyone would think that the Opposition parties had gone to Berlin themselves and won the deal. They did not do that. The Conservatives never tried for objective 1 status and the nationalists never thought that we would do it. Now, between them, they are using the success of our negotiations cynically to bring down the Assembly and wreck the devolution settlement.

I agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said to Opposition Members. Everything that we are trying to achieve on objective 1 is in support of what we promised in the general election and in the Welsh Assembly elections. I am sure that he will give sympathetic consideration to a development at the Bridgend paper mills in Llangynwyd. It deserves consideration, especially because of the high unemployment rate in my constituency. I am sure that he will look favourably at the application.

My hon. Friend is aware that these matters are not for the United Kingdom Government but for the National Assembly, but I am aware of the problems to which he refers. I am a valley Member myself, and I understand the importance of the factory to his constituency. He may rest assured that I will raise the matter when next I have discussions with the First Secretary.

Will the Secretary of State admit that, in the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), it is as plain as a pikestaff that there will be no additional funding from the Treasury to bring down objective 1 funding for Wales? Does not that mean that the Assembly's health and education budgets will be raided to provide the matching funds? How does he intend to overcome that problem?

The hon. Gentleman must know something that I do not. I spend a great deal of my time—I shall do so later today and during the rest of the week—discussing with my Cabinet colleagues and other Ministers precisely the nature of the spending review and how much money will be involved for objective 1. We have to go through that spending process, as he knows. That is the way of government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our general commitment, which I repeat, but it will take between now and July for us to sort out the detail of the negotiations.

My constituency would be happy to accept objective 1 or objective 2 status, surrounded as we are by objective 1 both to the west and to the English east. When my right hon. Friend sees the First Secretary or travels to Brussels, will he say that we would expect at the very least a £25 million grant for the A3XX project, because if we do not get that, we in north-east Wales will not look kindly on the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff?

I am aware that my right hon. Friend has spent a great deal of time and energy in the past month putting the case for that project very forcefully and robustly. He knows that because I have been with him in his constituency to look at the project. He may rest assured that I will raise the matter once again when I see the First Secretary next week.

I am not whingeing, as the Secretary of State suggested, but the House and the people of Wales need some clear answers on this subject. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is no money in his allocation to provide any match funding for 2000–01 or 2001–02 and that, if any money were forthcoming, it would have to fall within the departmental expenditure limit? I remind him of his answer to me on 10 November 1999, Official Report column 621W, when he said that the departmental expenditure limit was not being changed as a result of the negotiation of objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys. That means that any allocations would have to be taken from education, health or roads in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has no confidence in the Labour Administration. The people of Wales do not believe the Prime Minister when he says that he will not let Wales down.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his figures in that the allocations for the National Assembly for Wales and for my office are different. Obviously, it is for the Assembly to determine what happens in the first year of objective 1 funding. I am assured by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary that such moneys are there for the first year of that funding. As to after that, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government normally fund all their projects through the spending review. The Chief Secretary has told me and other colleagues that the Treasury accepts the fact that objective 1 funding and the relationship between the block grant is different from previous years and that that will be dealt with in the forthcoming spending review.

When he next plans to meet the First Secretary to discuss the role of Cardiff international airport in the future economic development of the region. [103488]

I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues including transport and its impact on the future economic development of Wales. This includes the non-devolved subject of airports—a matter reserved to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The First Secretary has not requested a meeting specifically to discuss Cardiff international airport, but access, and transport generally, are issues considered in the Assembly's economic development plans.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that the success and regeneration of the Welsh economy with objective 1 support will depend on access to an international airport providing regular, scheduled business flights. He may not be aware that Cardiff international airport may not develop to its full potential and provide such a service to business if it does not get a dual highway to link it to the motorway network. When he next meets the First Secretary, will he bring that urgent matter to his attention? If he does so, he will have the backing of nearly the entire south Wales business community.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that issue. As the local Member of Parliament, he is very much aware of the significance of Cardiff airport to the Welsh economy. It is one of the United Kingdom's fastest growing airports and has the longest runway west of Heathrow and south of Manchester. On the matter that he raised, I am pleased to tell the House that the Assembly and the Vale of Glamorgan local authority are considering a link between Culverhouse Cross and the airport and have already spent about £300,000 on the design and preparation work for such a road.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the economic regeneration of the catchment area that is served by the airport, and indeed the well-being of the airport itself, will depend on sorting out the mess that has arisen between the Department of Trade and Industry and the European Commission in Brussels about regional assistance. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that we do not lose any companies in Wales—in that area or any other part of Wales—as a result of the fact that we are without the regional assistance that we should have had in place from 1 January? When does he expect that assistance to be in place?

First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the House. We are aware that he is on the mend and I hope that he improves even more. Obviously, we are aware of the difficulties regarding the matter that he raises. It has been discussed in Brussels. In the meantime, I understand that the National Assembly for Wales has prepared provisional arrangements so that when companies apply for such grants they will be given conditional assistance. Obviously, I share his view that we need to sort the matter out as quickly as possible.

When my right hon. Friend is discussing airports, would he not forget the special contribution that is made by the smaller airports, such as Pembrey airport in my constituency—which will soon start regular flights to and from London—to the economic regeneration of Wales and, in my constituency, in south Wales?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The Assembly has embarked on a study of air services generally in Wales, and I am sure that that will include the airport at Pembrey. The study was commissioned by the former Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I hope that it will be published in March.

If he has met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on transport in Wales. [103489]

My right hon. Friend has discussed the impact on transport in Wales with the First Secretary and with the Assembly Cabinet. Both myself and my right hon. Friend addressed a plenary Session of the Assembly in the context of the Government's legislative programme, and we listened to the Assembly's views on a range of issues, including the impact on transport. I also meet regularly with the Assembly Secretary for Local Government, Environment and Transport and have discussed the Transport Bill with him.

Is not one of the major co-operative achievements on transport between the Labour Government and the Labour leadership in the Assembly the fact that we have half-price concessionary fares on the buses for our pensioners in Wales, and will shortly have free buses for pensioners, under the Assembly? By chance, does my hon. Friend have to hand the number of pensioners in Swansea and Ceredigion who will benefit?

I can confirm that British Government resources used by the Assembly will ensure that, in Wales from April 2002, all pensioners will receive free bus transport. By chance, I happen to have the numbers who will benefit in all constituencies in Wales. My hon. Friend mentioned Swansea and Ceredigion in particular, and I can tell him that more than 36,000 pensioners in Swansea city and 14,500 in Ceredigion will receive free bus transport. I hope that they will recognise that shortly in Swansea, Ceredigion and elsewhere in Wales.

Is not it time that we had a common-sense approach for the car user in Wales, including Ceredigion? In 1997, petrol prices were about 59p a litre. Now, they are about 75p a litre. Thanks to the Government, taxes on the car user have gone up by 13p a litre. What representations is the Minister making to the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the mugging of the rural motorist, which hits the pensioner, the student and the farmer alike? When will the Government recognise that the car in rural areas is a necessity, not a luxury? When will the Government stop caning the countryside?

You will tell me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, but I do believe that it was the Conservative party who introduced the fuel escalator, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has agreed to review and will decide upon, year on year, in each Budget. In Wales, £179 million is being spent on transport infrastructure—far more than was spent by the Conservative Government. We value the motorist, and we value the need for rural areas to have strong motoring economies. However, at the end of the day, we must face transport problems generally for rural and city users. The hon. Gentleman should not come to this House today to talk about the fuel escalator when the Conservative Government introduced it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency suffers from probably the worst road congestion in Wales? The railways should alleviate that, but the valleys line suffers from under-capacity because there is insufficient incentive to put down track to carry passengers. Cardiff Central railway station suffers from under-capacity, and is unable to meet the demands from the nearby Millennium stadium when 60,000 people flow out and congest its platforms. What plans do the Government have to address that under-capacity problem on our railways?

I fully concur with the views of my hon. Friend. The Transport Bill will introduce a Strategic Rail Authority, and Wales will have a representative on that authority who will be able to argue strongly for the Welsh perspective in the interests of improving the infrastructure of the rail system in Wales. My hon. Friend has mentioned issues that are important to the valleys and to Cardiff, and I hope that we as the British Government will work in partnership with the Assembly to ensure that we improve rail transport for the needs of both communities.

If he will list the responsibilities of the special advisers to the Wales Office. [103490]

The Wales Office has two special advisers, Professor Hywel Francis and Mr. Adrian McMenamin, both of whom assist me across the whole range of my responsibilities. Professor Francis is primarily based in Cardiff and mainly liaises with the National Assembly, and Mr. McMenamin is primarily based in London and liaises with other UK Government Departments.

Given that the two special advisers seem rather underwhelmed with work at the moment, may I make a helpful suggestion? Does the Secretary of State realise of his two predecessors—both of whom remain Members of Parliament—that as of the new year, out of 73 Divisions of the House, one had voted only once and the other had not voted at all? As a gesture of kindness, could not he offer them the services of his special advisers to dream up some excuses for that appalling voting record?

I am not sure how that question relates to the role of special advisers in the Wales Office. My advisers have plenty of work to do, if only to address all the issues that hon. Members have raised today.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with his special advisers the lack of public accountability of quangos in Wales such as the Arts Council of Wales and Forest Enterprise Wales? Does he agree that the decision by Forest Enterprise Wales not to sell Chepstow Park wood will be greatly welcomed in my constituency, and that the decision by the Arts Council of Wales to suspend its flawed drama strategy will be equally welcomed?

I am not sure whether my two special advisers can take credit for both those decisions, but I, too, welcome them. I said to him at the previous Question Time that there would be a satisfactory outcome as far as the Forestry Commission was concerned, and that has been the case. I am also delighted that the Gwent and other theatre companies have been saved.

What are the special advisers doing, because post offices in Wales are under threat; farmers in Wales face the worst crisis in 60 years and some of them are surviving on incomes of only £2,000 a year; when objective 1 match funding is uncertain and even a former Labour Secretary of State for Wales has criticised its handling; and when intensive care patients are being treated in recovery rooms? Is not it time that the Secretary of State retired his special advisers and invested the money saved in services that would benefit all the people of Wales?

Again, the hon. Gentleman gives my advisers more powers than they have and certainly more money than they are paid would be needed to solve the problems to which he refers. On one specific issue he mentioned, my predecessor is fully aware that the negotiation to obtain objective 1 moneys is a process, not an event.

What discussions he has had about the provision of financial assistance for the A400M and A3XX projects. [103491]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets my right hon. Friend the First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues that are clearly matters of great economic importance to the UK as a whole, and to Wales in particular. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discussed those issues with my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, Mr. David Roe Beddoe. He also visited the British Aerospace site at Broughton in September and received a deputation from the company to discuss the Airbus project, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside.

Obviously, I share the concerns about the future of the aerospace industry. Many jobs in north Wales and Lancashire are dependent on the next two projects—the A3XX and the A400M. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the case for Wales and Lancashire is put strongly, and will he recognise that the C 17s do not bring any jobs to the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend makes some relevant points, and I recognise the importance of financial support for the A400M and the A3XX projects. Some 4,000 jobs at the Broughton site in north Wales depend on the projects, and there is the potential there for 1,400 additional new jobs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in contact with the Welsh Assembly and the Department of Trade and Industry on these important matters, and we shall certainly battle in Government on behalf of Wales' interests.

What reports he has commissioned for 2000 on law and order issues in Wales. [103492]

I have not commissioned any such reports. Law and order in England and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I discuss these issues with other Ministers on a regular basis.

Will Ministers in the Wales Office talk to their Home Office colleagues about two important law and order matters in Wales? The crime figures published yesterday for north and south Wales and for Dyfed-Powys were very good, although those for Gwent were less good. The two police forces in England and Wales with the highest rates of violent crimes as a proportion of all crimes are Dyfed-Powys and Gwent. In both of them, more than one crime in five is a violent crime—way above anywhere else in England and Wales.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, although yesterday's figures show that overall crime rates fell in three out of the four Welsh police authorities, which is good news for Wales. Clear-up rates in Dyfed-Powys and Gwent are relatively high, compared with other police authorities. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised some serious issues, and I assure him that the Government are committed to tackling violent crime. I shall discuss the matter with colleagues when the opportunity arises.

My hon. Friend knows that it is three years since the Waterhouse inquiry into child abuse in north Wales was commissioned. There is considerable concern at the long delay in publication of the report, especially among my constituents, some of whom were directly involved in that child abuse. They are now adults and they want to know when the report will be published. Will my hon. Friend give some indication of when that will happen?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue in which I take great interest, both as a Member of Parliament representing a north Wales constituency, and as a Wales Office Minister. The report has been received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is currently being prepared for publication, and the summary of the report is being translated into Welsh. I anticipate that we will be able to publish the report as soon as that work is complete, and I look forward to that happening soon.

Who is to blame for the rising crime in Wales—the Labour Government in London, or the Labour regime in Cardiff?

The figures published yesterday showed that crime fell in three of the four police authorities in Wales. The Government have put extra resources into those authorities, with the result that Wales now has more police officers in post and on the beat than when the previous Conservative Government left office. The record of this Government is that there are more police officers, and that crime has fallen in three out of the four authorities in Wales.

What arrangement has been put in place for the regular review of the block grant for the Welsh Executive. [103493]

The Welsh block is determined within the framework of public expenditure control in the United Kingdom, and is normally assessed during the regular reviews of the Government's spending plans. The next spending review is taking place this year and continues the three-year planning cycle established in the comprehensive spending review.

I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to boast that Wales already gets more than its fair share of central Government expenditure, and that it has done very well out of regional assistance. Does he agree that to give extra money to the Welsh Assembly for match funding would be wholly unfair to the UK taxpayer?

First, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Wales gets only its fair share of public expenditure. The system to which he refers has served Wales well for two decades. Any money going to Wales under objective 1 funding is a result of the fact that Wales qualifies, in terms of deprivation, for objective 1 status.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 January.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not the case that nurses, midwives and national health service staff thoroughly deserve their pay rise for the way in which they have kept the NHS going, not only in the face of the flu epidemic, but in the face of a generation of Tory neglect? On future health funding, can my right hon. Friend confirm that private medical insurance for a pensioner couple costs up to £87 a week? Does that not show that Tory policy on privatisation is totally out of touch with the needs of the majority of the British people?

The additional pay award will help recruit and retain nurses in the health service. Indeed, there has been a 24 per cent. increase in the number of nurses starting training as a result of the increase last year. There is a very clear choice. Conservative policy is to ensure that there is tax relief for private medical insurance. The cost of providing such tax relief for those who already have private medical insurance would be enough to wipe out the entire nurses' pay award for this year, plus cancelling every refurbishment of every accident and emergency department in this country. The Conservatives are doing that because of their so-called tax guarantee. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said this of it:

"to say that you are going to reduce the proportion of taxes to GDP in all circumstances is mad … You simply don't unless you make … swingeing cuts in the health service".

With crime rising for the first time in six years—violent crime is up 6 per cent., robbery by 19 per cent., and total crime by more than 110,000 offences—has not the Prime Minister's failure to be tough on crime now become one of the causes of crime? Is it not the case that thousands of victims of crime have discovered that the right hon. Gentleman's pledge to be tough on crime was empty, worthless and fraudulent?

It did not take the right hon. Gentleman long to move off the subject of the health service.

When the right hon. Gentleman took office, crime had fallen—was falling—and the number of police officers was up by 16,000. Now police numbers have fallen by more than 1,000 under the Home Secretary, stop-and-search powers have not been used, honesty in sentencing has been dropped, police morale has plummeted and crime is rising after six years of falling. Who does the right hon. Gentleman think is responsible for the rise in crime, the fall in police numbers and low police morale in the past year?

Let me correct the right hon. Gentleman. Crime did not fall under the Conservatives—it doubled. As a matter of fact, domestic burglaries have fallen by 20 per cent. and the theft of vehicles has fallen by 17 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are not introducing any tougher measures on crime. It is this Government who have introduced tougher measures for drug dealers; it is this Government who are halving the time that it takes to get juvenile offenders to court; and it is this Government who have introduced the policy of "three strikes and you're out" for burglary.

Yesterday, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation said that the Home Secretary

"has presided over the largest fall in police numbers for years, a huge rise in crime and the most demoralised force".

Let me respond to the right hon. Gentleman on crime. As I admitted a couple of Question Times ago, it is correct that police numbers continued to fall during our first two years, because we had inherited proposals that were made by the Conservatives. It is also correct that police numbers fell during the last few years of the Conservative Government by more than during our first two years. However, as a result of the fund introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we can now recruit more police officers and turn that around.

Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is on the Front Bench next to the Prime Minister, said:

"We shall ensure that, over five years, there is a 5 per cent. real-terms funding growth in the national health service."—[Official Report, 18 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 744.]

"I can't say there will be a 5 per cent. increase this year, next year, and so on."

Let me read what I said on the Sunday programme:

"If we run the economy properly over the next few years"—

If!

Order. I am not deaf; I can hear what is being said.

I said:

"we've got the first year … of substantial extra resources for the Health Service going in. Next year is the same, the year after that it's the same. If this July when we work out the next three year period after that three year period we can carry on getting real-term rises in the Health Service"

Let us have an answer from the Prime Minister, instead of that waffle about what he said. So far, we have had Frost on Sunday, panic on Monday, U-turn on Tuesday and waffle on Wednesday. If there was a pledge, why, yesterday, did the Prime Minister's spokesman say that he could not say that there would be a 5 per cent. increase year on year? That was the Prime Minister's spokesman—he is responsible for his spokesman. [HON. MEMBERS: "No he isn't."] Oh, the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for his spokesman. Not only does he deny responsibility for most things that are happening in the country, he now denies responsibility for his own press spokesman. Is the right hon. Gentleman happy to repeat the statement made in the House last night by his junior Health Minister, who said:

"We shall ensure that, over five years, there is a 5 per cent. real-terms funding growth in the national health service."

We are putting in a 5 per cent. real-terms growth. We are doing that. As I have said—not only on "Breakfast with Frost", but in the House in December—if we carry on running the economy properly, we can get these real terms rises in. [HON. MEMBERS: "If!"] If the Opposition think that the public will be disappointed, come July and the comprehensive spending review, they will find that they are the ones to be disappointed.

"the Conservatives are no longer concerned with the maintenance of the NHS as the primary provider … 'Philosophically, we have moved on … Insurance companies could cover conditions that are not high tech or expensive, like hip or knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations. We could then leave expensive treatments like cancer therapy to the NHS'".

One might think that the right hon. Gentleman had enough to do misrepresenting his own policies without misrepresenting ours. He knows that we are committed to improve and expand the national health service, but he also knows that every informed commentator and every other Government in Europe believes in also improving health care from other sources—except him, with his blinkered ideology and his hostility to the private sector.

Let us just deal with two of the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. The first is that we are not prepared to look at other health care systems. Perhaps, in light of what has been in the media in the past few days, I should explain what happens, for example, under the German or the French system. German employers have to pay about 7 per cent. on top of each worker' s salary for health cover. Each worker has to take about £1,300 out of their pay to fund health insurance. In France, employers pay about 12 per cent. on top of each worker's gross wage. There is no way whatever that private medical insurance could solve the problem in the health service—none.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government have no intention to legislate to allow the promotion of homosexuality in our schools?

We believe, as we have said already, in getting rid of section 28. That is not because we believe it right to promote homosexuality but because we believe it is right for school teachers and others to be able to explain to children properly the facts of life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Some people may make political capital out of the issue, but I think that it is a sensible change and that it is the right change. I hope that we can get a more mature debate on it than we have had in certain quarters.

Assuming that the Prime Minister and the Government intend to go ahead with the proposed 1 per cent. reduction in income tax in April this year, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much that will cost the Exchequer?

I also said in the interview that I gave on Sunday that the measure is in part compensation for the other tax changes that are being made. I believe that it is the right thing to do. Yes, we can always put up taxes and spend more, but, as a result of the changes that we have made, we will put this year into the national health service—

How much will it cost the Exchequer?

The right hon. Gentleman asks, "How much?" We will put in a real-terms increase of 6 per cent. That works out both in real and in cash terms as several times the amount that he pledged at the last election.

I simply asked the Prime Minister how much it would cost, and answer came there none. It will cost more than £2 billion in April of this year. How many people out there in the country would rather see that money going on local hospitals, solving the problems of the health service, dealing with the operations that have been cancelled and so on and so forth? That is our priority; that is where the money should go. Why is it not the Prime Minister's priority? He should be putting the money towards health and not towards tax cuts.

First, let us deal with the Liberal Democrats' economic policy. As a matter of fact, on the Finance Bill, they have tabled deletions of rises and tax cuts that amount to more than 1p on the standard rate of income tax. If they are going to be consistent, there is no way that their sums add up at all.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the great steps forward that the Government have made in addressing the issues of child care and family friendly policies. Is he also aware that the House is failing to meet the needs of its staff, who desperately need access to child care? As a parliamentarian, will he join me in supporting, in this new century, a chance to modernise this place to ensure that staff have access to child-care facilities for their children?

Obviously, I have more than a passing interest in child care. However, I say to my hon. Friend that this is a matter for the House authorities and it would be wrong for me to say more than that.

If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the equalisation of the total sums of public money to be spent on each side of the argument in future referendum campaigns.

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill received its Second Reading last week and will put into effect the Neill committee recommendations. It provides that up to £600,000 of public money should be made available by the Electoral Commission to designated umbrella organisations on each side of any referendum campaign.

Given that the Bill allows equal sums of public money to be made available, why is the Prime Minister also putting into the Bill rules that mean that parties that favour the euro will be able to spend much more of the money that they raise than parties that are opposed to British entry into the euro? Could that be because at least 64 per cent. of the British people are opposed to the Prime Minister's policy of abolishing the pound, and he knows that he can only hope to get it through by rigging the rules in that way?

That is nonsense. The two main parties will qualify for the same limit. In any event it could not be said that the no campaign was not well funded; indeed I should have thought that the opposite could be said. The rules are very fair for the no and yes campaigns because the sum of public money given to each side will be precisely the same, and the limit is the same for the main political parties. There is parity of treatment on both sides.

On the equalisation of moneys for the referendum, is the Prime Minister aware that Yorkshire property developer Mr. Paul Sykes told the Yorkshire Post last year that he is prepared to spend his £235 million fortune campaigning against Europe and the euro? He is already spending £20 million putting up very flattering pictures of me with my name on in my constituency, which my constituents think I have paid for myself, so I thank him for that.

My hon. Friend is right, which is why, as I said to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the no campaign is incredibly well funded, and it would be rather odd for anyone to claim that it would be discriminated against in funding.

Is the Prime Minister aware that every independent analyst and the House of Commons Library show that the so-called £21 billion health spending increase is, in real terms, £6.3 billion? If we used the Government's double and treble counting for the Prime Minister's age, on his next birthday he would turn 93 instead of 47, and on the following birthday he would enter the "Guinness Book of Records". In view of the crisis in the health service, perhaps a bit of straight talk and simple truth on those figures is warranted for the British people.

The £21 billion is £21 billion extra. I am sorry to have to point this out, but the one group of people who cannot complain about the amount of money going to the health service is the Conservative party. Let me educate the hon. Gentleman about his own policy. The Conservatives guarantee that they will cut taxes irrespective of the economic circumstances. There is no way that they can implement that policy while increasing spending on the health service. That is why they have never pledged to increase spending on the health service by the amount that we have pledged in this comprehensive spending review. That is no part of their guarantee. If the hon. Gentleman wants extra spending on the NHS, he should take a leaf out of others' book and start crossing the Floor.

After the years of damaging Tory failure and isolation in Europe, does the Prime Minister welcome the publication today of Neil Kinnock's programme of radical action to overhaul the European Commission? If so, will he take a lead among European Union member states to make sure that we back tough action to clean up Europe and bring the Commission into the 21st century?

The programme will make substantial differences to the way in which the Commission is run and to its accountability, transparency and efficiency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry if Conservative Members do not support that, but it is after all what both Governments—this Government and the previous Government—were calling for over many years. Now that it has been delivered, the least that we can do is to acknowledge it.

The Prime Minister will know that the continuing crisis in agriculture is hitting all sectors. Specifically, does he want the pig industry—both farming and processing—to survive? To that end, will he back Agriculture Ministers' efforts to remove from the pig industry the cost of the BSE crisis? The pig industry faces the cost of regulations relating to a crisis in whose creation it played no part.

I understand the difficulties of the pig industry. The problems, although very bad in some other countries, are especially bad in this country. We shall look and are looking for ways in which to reduce the cost and burden of regulation on the farming industry. However, some of the regulations have been introduced for animal welfare reasons, for example, the regulations on tethering animals, which were passed with cross-party consent in the previous Parliament, although they have been implemented universally only more recently. All those matters have to be seen against a background of real difficulties which are outside our control and have to do with loss of market share. We shall consider every means possible to help the pig industry, but most consumers would not thank us if we reduced animal welfare standards.

Does my right hon. Friend share my distress at the activities of carpetbaggers who deprive building societies of funds that they might otherwise have used to provide resources for affordable housing? Does he agree that borrowing members of building societies are as important as saving members? Does he agree with the Select Committee that urged swift legislation on the matter?

The Government recognise the variety and choice that societies bring to the savings and loans market. On entering office, we acted promptly to increase the turnout threshold on conversion votes from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. Only a society's board can propose conversion, which requires the support of 75 per cent. of saving members on a 50 per cent. turnout, and 50 per cent. of borrowing members who vote. Those are high thresholds, which have been reinforced by our action, but it is right that they are high. The current balance is correct.

The Prime Minister will know that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is one of the few police forces to have had the honour of being awarded the title "Royal". What precedent is there for removing such an award, and is not its removal regarded as a sign of dishonour? Nothing the Government say or do can dishonour the RUC and the men who have served in it, but they can dishonour and are dishonouring themselves.

There is no dishonour intended to the RUC: its officers have given their lives and shown outstanding bravery for many years. We are trying to ensure that Northern Ireland has a police service that is capable of attracting support from all sides of the community, so that it can police better. For that very reason, the Good Friday agreement provided for an independent commission, which has been headed by a former Northern Ireland Minister in the Conservative Government, to look closely into the issues. I do not want to pre-empt the statement that is to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, except to say that our desire in making any changes is not to devalue in any shape or form the enormous contribution made by the RUC, but to ensure that we get a police service in Northern Ireland that can attract people from all communities and enjoy the confidence of people from all communities, because we believe that that is an important part of a better future in Northern Ireland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the draft regulations on part-time workers published on Monday by the Department of Trade and Industry will be welcomed by the CBI, the TUC and part-time workers—in fact, everyone but the Conservatives, who do not appear to like the fact that the regulations emanate from Europe and that they give workers rights? Will he assure the House that he will consider carefully ways in which the rights to fair pay, holiday entitlement and training opportunities that are offered to part-time workers can be extended to casual workers?

We will certainly consider the point that my hon. Friend makes about casual workers. The purpose of the new regulations is to ensure that part-time workers get a proper deal. That is part of ensuring that we have a labour market in which there are certain basic standards in place. The minimum wage is one such standard. The fact that we are introducing proper rights for part-time workers and the fact that people will have for the first time the right to paid holiday entitlement are all basic, decent rights. They are all things that the Conservatives are committed to scrapping. That shows only how entirely out of touch they are.

rose—

Order. Time is up.