What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the climate change levy. [108908]

I meet the First Secretary weekly and we discuss a range of issues. However, lead responsibility on the climate change levy as a tax measure lies with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the responsibility for negotiated agreements lies with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make the strongest representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to persuade him that, if he goes on imposing stealth taxes on our industries, he will make them uncompetitive? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to do that to important industries ranging from aluminium to horticulture, and to treat them as he has treated the pig industry and see them go into terminal decline?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Assembly for Wales has a responsibility in those matters. It contacted 20 major energy users and businesses in Wales, and they expressed general support for the aims of the levy.

I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to visit Shotton steelworks in the near future. When he meets my steelworker constituents, they will tell him of their great interest in the levy. Does he agree that our steel industry faces considerable competition overseas and that the scale and nature of the levy, and the way in which it is pitched, organised and assessed, are of great importance for employment in the industry throughout Britain? Does he agree also that this great steelworks is the scene of much productivity and success? There will be a warm welcome for him when he visits my constituency soon.

I very much look forward to visiting my right hon. Friend's constituency a week on Friday, I think, and particularly to visiting Shotton. I assure him that his points about the steel industry are very well made.

Was not the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) disingenuous in the extreme? The Government have committed themselves to the levy and, after the embarrassment that they have suffered in the past week on Welsh Assembly matters, I should have thought that the last thing that the Minister would want to say is that this is all down to the Welsh Assembly. Why does not he accept that the responsibility lies with him and his colleagues to make sure that no more stealth taxes hit British industry?

Welsh questions is not the place to raise those general matters when I was dealing with a specific question asked of me in my capacity as Secretary of State for Wales. The hon. Gentleman must understand that devolution means devolution.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the budget for the National Assembly for Wales for 2000–01. [108909]

I meet the Assembly First Secretary weekly to discuss a range of issues.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the First Secretary, will he convey my heartfelt congratulations on his appointment, and those of my constituents? Will he tell the First Secretary that the overwhelming majority of my constituents share Labour's priorities and that they will be delighted to hear of the increases in the Assembly budget for next year, in particular the 7.5 per cent. increase in the money that can be spent on health and social services and the more than 10 per cent. increase in money for education? My constituents will be delighted with that expenditure increase, and I hope that he will convey those thoughts to the new First Secretary.

I will indeed convey those thoughts to the new First Secretary in Cardiff. Everybody in Wales will be grateful for the emphasis that the National Assembly budget has put on education and health. It is important for Members of this House to understand that the National Assembly is a new institution; that the people of Wales voted for devolution, and that we wish the new First Secretary well, as indeed did all parties, including the Conservatives, when they met yesterday to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) was made First Secretary. We ought also to put on record our thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for the way that he worked in establishing the Assembly.

Does not the new First Secretary have a keen interest in private business and a clear understanding of its operation? We hope that matters relating to objective 1 match funding will be included in the budget, as well as projects that will be pursued to obtain objective 1 moneys for the poorest parts of Wales. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the private sector is fully engaged in that process so that new initiatives can be taken for job creation in Wales for the benefit of the people in those poor areas?

The hon. Gentleman has a good point. He will be aware that the First Secretary was—indeed, as far as I am aware, still is—the Assembly Secretary on economic and European matters. As such, he has spent a great deal of time in the past month dealing with the issue. I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points, particularly on the schemes for objective 1 funding, and especially those concerning small and medium-sized businesses.

When my right hon. Friend next talks to the First Secretary, will he remind him that this House decides the expenditure given to Wales? Given that, as I understand it, we are proposing an increase of £474 million in the Welsh Assembly's budget, we do not want in 12 months' time to witness again the scene in the Assembly last week. Opposition Assembly Members, particularly Plaid Cymru and perhaps the Liberals, should be reminded that we in this House decide on the money and that, therefore, we shall still have some control over what we grant to them.

My hon. Friend is right when he says that the people of Wales and, indeed, Members of this House, would not want a regular repeat performance of what occurred in Cardiff last week. I think that everybody would agree that, first, Wales needs stability in the three years remaining of the Assembly's term, and, secondly, the Assembly should deliver the services affecting people's lives, such as eduction and the health service, with which the devolution settlement charged it. He is also right in saying that this House of Commons determines the block grant, although I am sure he would agree that distribution of that grant in Wales is a matter for colleagues in the National Assembly.

This is the first Welsh questions since the "fun and games" in the Welsh Assembly last week, as the Prime Minister called it. We wish the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) well in his new position. At least he is unlike his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who was like a puppet on a string. We hope that those strings have been cut well and firmly.

Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman's party in Cardiff warmly welcomed my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) as the new First Secretary. The hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Cardiff might have been a little more generous about the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has worked.

The Secretary of State will be aware that it is not only politicians who are interested in what is going on with objective 1 status. For instance, CyberCall in Cardigan stated this week that it was appalled at the antics of politicians and that all that it is interested in is ensuring that sufficient funds are made available so that Wales wins objective 1 status. We are talking about 400 jobs going to one of the most disadvantages areas of Wales. Given that the Prime Minister said that he would not let Wales down, will the Secretary of State assure companies such as CyberCall, and the people of Wales, that they will receive match funding, so that jobs can go to the most disadvantaged areas of Wales?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, in all the years that his Government dealt with structural funding, they had to go through the process. He will also be aware that, in this very House of Commons a week or so ago, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, poured scorn on structural funding and said that we should not have it at all in this country. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he wants objective 1 funding.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about children in care in Wales. [108911]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Secretary, and I have had discussions with Jane Hutt, the Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary, about children in care. Following the publication yesterday of the North Wales child abuse report, we will, of course, be discussing with the Assembly, in the coming weeks and months, the report and the recommendations that it contains.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he assure the House that every means will be used in the legislative process to ensure that a children's commissioner for Wales is set up; that the commissioner's remit will cover every aspect of children's lives, and all children, including children in care; and that the necessary legislation will not preclude any children in Wales?

I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to a children's commissioner in Wales and her campaigning work on that. She knows that the Labour party went into the Assembly election with a commitment to establish a children's commissioner, as did other parties. We now await considered Assembly deliberations on the role and scope of the children's commissioner. In due course, the Government, through the ministerial task force, will examine the Assembly's recommendations and those of Sir Ronald Waterhouse. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

The House was appalled yesterday at the report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse. As a member of the Select Committee on Health looking into abuse of child migrants, I know from personal experience how harrowing it is to take evidence from the victims of child abuse.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Department of Health and the National Assembly today issued a list of names to local authorities and health authorities in England and Wales, to ensure that, by 5 pm tomorrow in the case of the Department of Health and by 5 pm on Friday in the case of the National Assembly, all those names have been checked against employees. That has been done to protect children who are potentially at risk because those people may be working in local authorities and health authorities. Matters of resources are for the Department of Health and the National Assembly, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Government intend to protect children. We will take the necessary action vigorously, and we will ensure that the recommendations are examined vigorously also.

When he next expects to meet the First Secretary to discuss the financing of the health service in Wales. [108912]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales, including health matters, and I have regular meetings with the Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary. The issues discussed, of course, include the funding of the NHS in Wales, but any decision on the allocation of health funding within Wales is a matter for the National Assembly.

When my hon. Friend meets the First Secretary, will he underline the deep concern felt in north Glamorgan about the state of our acute health services and the fact that we have not been able to make key consultant appointments? Is he aware that Bro Taff is claiming that it has a projected deficit of £18 million and therefore cannot make such improvements? Given the large amount of extra resources to be put into the health service, will he make sure that those resources go to the communities suffering the greatest need and deprivation?

My hon. Friend raises important points. I will ensure that his strength of feeling about deprivation and allocation of resources is conveyed to the Health Secretary, Jane Hutt. I can tell him that the resource increases are significant. This year in Wales, the national health service will receive £2.8 billion, a 7 per cent. increase of £182 million over resources last year. That reflects real commitment by the Government, matched by partnership with the Assembly.

Will the Minister discuss with the First Minister or the Health Secretary in the Assembly the prospect of holding a review of bed spaces in Wales, in line with the review being held in England?

I shall certainly draw that issue to the attention of the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services, but I stress that it is a matter for the National Assembly, which has to make the decisions. That is the position.

Will the Secretary of State examine the crazy system of financing health authorities in Wales, whereby the authorities are deemed to have large deficits, which have arisen through providing health services? They are told to wipe out their deficits, but they can do that only by wiping out health services. Will the Secretary of State reconsider that system and institute a root and branch investigation into it?

My right hon. Friend makes important points. The Government's commitment to increasing health expenditure in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom has been made to ensure that we provide better public services at the sharp end. I shall discuss my right hon. Friend's point with the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services.

What representations he has received on the railway services available in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [108913]

I have received no representations on railway services in Wales. However, I have regularly discussed transport in Wales with the First Secretary and the Assembly Cabinet.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. One of the National Assembly's duties is to prepare an integrated and sustainable transport policy. How is it possible to do that when the Assembly has no input into policy on the railways?

That is not quite right. Under the Transport Bill, which is going through the House, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will accept that the Assembly has an interest in those matters. The Assembly will be consulted on the appointment of a member of the Strategic Rail Authority, which, in addition, will be compelled by law to consult the Assembly on its strategies. Nothing prevents the Assembly from discussing, or spending money on, the infrastructure of transport in Wales.

Will my right hon. Friend press the case for travellers between Holyhead and London? We are confronted daily with poor stock, bad punctuality and the attendant problems of such a service. The service has been neglected for far too long and I encourage my right hon. Friend to press our case strongly to the First Secretary of the National Assembly.

I understand my hon. Friend's points. I have travelled on that line on several occasions, and I fully accept her case. The Assembly is committed to investing £500,000 next year in the north Wales coast rail service to improve line speeds.

What recent discussions he has held with the First Secretary on the level of unemployment in Wales. [108914]

My right hon. Friend meets the First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues, including the level of unemployment in Wales. I am pleased to note that, between the general election and December 1999, the seasonally adjusted count of claimants of unemployment-related benefit has fallen from 81,800 under the Conservative Government to 59,200 under the Labour Government. That is a fall of more than 27 per cent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. Do not those figures reflect the Government's success in implementing the new deal and the working families tax credit, and encouraging sustainable growth and low inflation? Does my hon. Friend accept that the minimum wage has had a major impact on Wales? Far from creating more unemployment, it has had a genuine impact on, and is of real benefit to, many ordinary people in Wales.

Unemployment is at a 20-year low. In my hon. Friend's constituency of Clwyd, West, unemployment has fallen by 17 per cent. since the general election. The Government are making great strides to help create jobs and a climate for employment in Wales. The minimum wage is a valuable component, which ensures that people in Wales have decent pay. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the One2One telephone company has announced the creation of 1,000 jobs in Merthyr in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). That is good news for Wales, and for the Labour Government's handling of the economy in Wales.

Does the Minister agree that objective 1 resources are one of the best ways to create well-paid jobs in a constituency such as mine? Will he therefore join the First Minister in Wales and bust a gut to make sure that objective 1 money is additional to the Welsh block grant?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Welsh Question Time. He is aware of the situation, as we discussed it extensively during his by-election. There is a process, and the Government are following it. He will have to wait and see, but objective 1 was secured by the Government and it will deliver real employment prospects for the people of Wales. Discussions and consideration have been undertaken.

Given that unemployment has risen in Wales by 4,000 relative to the same quarter last year on the International Labour Organisation count, and that Business Strategies predicts an increase in unemployment of 7,000 consequent on the Government's stupid and malicious energy tax, when will the Minister abandon his smug complacency and own up to the massive damage that is being inflicted on the Welsh economy by their tax and regulatory policies?

On 1 May 1997, 81,800 people were unemployed. In December 1999, the figure was 59,200, which is a fall of 27 per cent. Labour government is working, the people of Wales are working and investment is being brought in. The Conservative party, which would scrap the new deal and is just about content to have the minimum wage, would damage the economy of Wales dramatically.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the prospects for the Welsh livestock industry. [108915]

I have regular weekly meetings with the First Secretary and we discuss a wide range of issues, including the Welsh livestock industry. I am acutely aware of the problems facing the farming community and the agriculture industry in general.

The prospects for livestock farmers are so bleak in Wales that some will have an annual income this year of only £2,000, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. How can the Secretary of State look them in the eye and justify squandering £26 million of British taxpayers' money on a fancy new building for the First Secretary?

The hon. Gentleman, who represents an English constituency, will be aware that all Welsh Members, save a very small number, represent constituencies with farming interests and all of us, including those who represent the south Wales valleys, know the problems that farmers face and the crisis that they are in. The number of actions that the Government have taken in the past year shows how seriously we take the farming crisis. For example, we gave more than £15 million in hill livestock compensatory allowance, introduced a cattle passport and deferred the charges and reduced the regulatory burden on farmers. The Assembly has taken a host of actions. He should be aware that the future of farming lies in the relationship between the Government and the farming industry and we must consider it on a long-term basis.

What recent discussions he has had about pig farming in Wales with the First Secretary. [108916]

I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues.

Has the Secretary of State discussed the Prime Minister's commitment to find money for English pig farmers and will that money be extended to Welsh pig farmers? Does he share my concern that the new First Secretary may not be in post very long if such funds are not found?

I sincerely hope that the First Secretary will be in post for a very long time. The last thing that we want is another change. There are relatively few pig farmers in Wales and only 1.6 per cent. of Welsh farms are pig and poultry farms, but the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is undertaking on behalf of the pig industry applies just as much to Wales.

When he will next meet the First Secretary to discuss the state of agriculture in Wales. [108917]

I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues, including Welsh agriculture.

It is all very well for the Secretary of State to tell my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that he knows all about the problems that Welsh farmers face. The dairy and livestock industry in Wales—[Interruption.] Labour Members obviously do not care a damn about them. Those industries have experienced a drop in income of more than 40 per cent., pig farming is almost on the point of collapse and in Ceredigion, where more than 21 per cent. of the population work in farming, people have shown what they think of the Labour Government. When will the Secretary of State stop saying that he knows about the problems and do something?

I live in, and represent, a Welsh constituency, and all of us who represent Welsh constituencies have a great interest in the fanning industry and in its success. I have just told the House of the various measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has taken. Those measures apply in Wales and, in addition, the National Assembly is doing a great deal to help the farming industry.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 February.

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that probably the greatest cause of crime in Britain today is drugs? In the small town of Slough alone, 43 problem drug users arrested in the past two months will be responsible for 5,000 crimes in the four to six weeks during which they wait for treatment. I spoke to Slough's police commander today, and he said that we need to do two things: provide better education to prevent young people from turning to drugs, and faster treatment for those problem users. May I tell the police commander that the Government are as serious as he is about drugs, and will deliver both those things?

There is no more serious problem than the link between crime and drugs. The Government have already introduced minimum sentences of seven years for drug dealers, mandatory drug testing, and new drug treatment orders. An extra £220 million is going into a strategy to fight drugs. The number of seizures of both hard and soft drugs is up. We are now looking into the establishment of drug courts, which are already being piloted in Wakefield. We welcome the new campaign being launched by the Metropolitan police, which has dramatically increased the lead on drug dealers, and has resulted in 700 extra people being arrested just in the past two weeks. We are determined to fight the drug menace at every level through tougher measures in the law, better provision in the courts, better education in our schools and better treatment for drug offenders.

The whole country and all parts of the House will have been shocked and saddened by the catalogue of abuse in many care homes uncovered by the Waterhouse report, which was published yesterday. We now know that hundreds of the most vulnerable children in our society were cruelly betrayed. The inquiry has come up with many sensible recommendations, as we always hoped it would. Can the Prime Minister give the House and the country a clear timetable for responding to this report, and for action, particularly in regard to the creation of a children's commissioner for children in care for all parts of the United Kingdom?

It is, indeed, an appalling situation and an appalling catalogue of terror and tragedy inflicted on some of the most vulnerable children in our society. All parts of the House will be anxious to take action as soon as possible to act on the recommendations of the report. The Care Standards Bill and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill give us an opportunity to do so. We shall respond as soon as we possibly can.

I am grateful for that reply. A children's rights director is not necessarily the same as a children's commissioner, but we all look forward to that proposal.

Of course we will do that. It is necessary for us to do that. Moreover, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there are now new provisions in respect of sex offenders, which should give us some assistance.

I agree with what the Prime Minister has said about children in care, but will he now turn his attention to a specific group of national health service staff? Does he agree that the valuable contribution made to the NHS by midwives has not been properly recognised, and that the implementation of clinical grading by the last Government led to serious problems of recruitment and retention? Bearing that in mind, will he tell us what the Government will do to develop the role of midwives, and to make best use of their expertise? Will he ensure that we have policies not only to attract new recruits, but to keep experienced midwives in the profession?

I am pleased to pay tribute to the work of registered midwives. The number of midwives fell by some 1,000 under the last Government, but there are now more than 33,000 practising midwives, the most for three years. Last year alone, the number of applications for midwifery training rose by 50 per cent., and the number of widwives intending to practise has risen by 1,000. Action is being taken. Moreover, figures will soon show that there are more nurses and doctors in the system, and, having talked to the Government's cancer adviser two days ago, I can tell the House that there are now 50 per cent. more cancer specialists in training.

Has the Prime Minister seen the reports in today's press that the entrepreneur James Dyson, who is to commit a significant sum involving a substantial number of jobs, is likely to invest that sum in China, Hong Kong and Malaysia because of the strength of the pound and the uncertainty over the Government's commitment to the euro? Does the Prime Minister not recognise that, if we are losing investment opportunities of that kind, the Government need to make the case for the euro and promote the cause of Europe more strenuously?

I will not comment on the particular case, which involves a decision that a particular person must make. I think that the important thing is to join the euro only in circumstances in which it is economically beneficial to the country, and that is precisely why we have set out the economic tests and conditions. The test should surely be British jobs, British investment and British industry: that is a sensible test. We should not rule out joining the euro for political reasons, which is the position of the Conservative party, but neither should we be in a position whereby we join regardless of the economic conditions. That, surely, is to the best benefit of the whole of British industry.

Surely the Prime Minister must engage more seriously, given the serious campaign that has been launched by the leader of the Tory party. If ever there was a case of dodgy goods falling on to the back of a truck, that is it.

The case that I want to make is the case of the Government, and the case of the Government is that we should apply the test of the economic conditions. That is the sensible test, and I believe that it is the position of the vast majority of British people. They want the test to be one of Britain's national interest. The test is British jobs, British industry and British investment, and the people believe it is right that they should have the ultimate say in a referendum. That is why I disagree so profoundly with the position of the Conservative party. As for the Liberal Democrats, I am never sure whether or not they disagree with our position, and are saying that they would join on a basis other than the economic conditions.

I am delighted that the Government's new crime fighting fund will mean that Greater Manchester police are able to recruit an extra 378 officers to tackle crime on the streets, but crime and disorder have left many inner-city communities deeply damaged. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will help local authorities such as Salford, especially their social services departments, which have to pick up the pieces, to care for children and their families and help to rebuild those communities?

We shall support local government and other players too in the inner cities who are trying to put together imaginative programmes to regenerate the inner city. That is why we are putting more money into education, more money into health and more money into fighting crime in areas such as Salford.

May I ask the Prime Minister a non-partisan question following his statement on drugs? He had the meeting this morning with Keith Hellawell. I have no doubt that he has now had a chance to see the letter that I sent him two days ago, at the request of my constituents who are providing voluntary and statutory services for drug misusers.

It is entirely sensible, obviously, to ensure that the strategy is a common one that works across all the different agencies. I have not yet seen the letter that the hon. Gentleman sent to me. I shall reply to it in due course, but may I say that, as a result of the new measures that we have introduced on drug testing in prison, the number of those who have had positive mandatory drugs tests in prison has fallen from 24.4 per cent. three years ago to 18.3 per cent. now. That is some help that is being given: better treatment, better testing in prisons.

Will my right hon. Friend, in view of yesterday's horrifying report, draw to the attention of employers of child care workers that not only are they required by law to vet their employees now, but, if they have even suspicions of abuse, they are required under the Protection of Children Act 1999 to report them and to investigate them? No longer are they allowed to let someone retire early, to leave, or simply to dismiss them on some other grounds. That is the law now.

It is important that people realise that they have such a duty and that, if they simply pass the problem on to someone else, some other organisation or some other body, it is children in the end who will suffer. One thing we have learned about these cases over a long period is that, of course, we have to investigate any inquiries very carefully, but we must ensure that, when those inquiries are made and they do find abuse, we act upon it.

The Prime Minister may be aware of recent reports that the United States company Myriad Genetics is seeking to patent the genes indicating susceptibility to breast cancer, which could result in British women being tied to using expensive tests from a single US company. Given reports, last September, that the Prime Minister was holding negotiations with the US president on how to keep the human genetic sequence in the public domain, will he tell us not only how those negotiations are going, but particularly whether he agrees with Bill Clinton's comment, last week, that such genetic patents should be kept narrow—so that only specific uses of the genetic code are patented, rather than the code itself, which belongs to all of mankind?

The hon. Gentleman is somewhat overstating the matter of negotiations on genetic issues. We have not had any negotiations with the American Government on those issues, which of course are important. The most important thing that we have done is to introduce the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which can evaluate drugs. We now have a proper, independent way of evaluating and ensuring that we make an assessment on the proper evidence. We have no interest in the particular issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers, other than to ensure that people get the best treatment possible. We have no more interest in one specific drug than another.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that sub-post offices—of which there are nearly 20 in my constituency, in villages such as Blairhall and Saline—provide a vital community service, as they are often the early warning system when an elderly or disabled person does not call in as usual for their pension or newspaper? Given the Government's commitment to building strong communities, does the Prime Minister agree that sub-post offices can not only be at their heart, but need the support and encouragement of us all?

Of course, they will get that encouragement and support. They are an important local network and focal point for communities. It is important, obviously, that we carry on introducing the new automation procedures—which will not force people to accept benefits in cash, but allow benefit to be paid into a bank account.

With which of the recent pronouncements on the future of Europe uttered by the Prime Minister's friend and nominee, Mr. Prodi, does the Prime Minister disagree?

We have set out our position in our own White Paper, which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there are currently six countries that execute juvenile offenders, including the United States of America, where, earlier this month, in Oklahoma, Sean Sellers was put to death for crimes committed when he was 16 years of age? Given that the Government oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, will my right hon. Friend urge those six countries—and other countries that retain capital punishment—to introduce a moratorium on its use, because its barbarity and potential for injustice has no place in any country that claims to call itself civilised?

We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, and we have ratified the death penalty protocols—not only to the European convention on human rights, but to the international covenant on civil and political rights. That position will not change.

The last time that I asked the Prime Minister about failing to keep his promises, he had to admit that police numbers had fallen by 1,000, but he assured the House that

"police numbers will rise again."—[Official Report, 15 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 265.]

We have made it clear that police numbers have come down. Police numbers will rise again as a result of the additional money over and above the plans that we inherited from the Conservatives, which will allow us to recruit 5,000 extra police. Those are 5,000 police who, had we maintained the plans that the right hon. Gentleman agreed when he was in the Cabinet, would not be recruited.

What is wrong with reading out the numbers? They are here in the Home Secretary's parliamentary answer. Some Ministers answer questions even if the Prime Minister will not. The Prime Minister said that the figures would rise again. The latest figures show that the number of police has now fallen by 1,700 since he became Prime Minister. Crime is rising again and police numbers are falling.

In relation to crime—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer !"I Do the Conservatives want the answers or not? Police numbers fell under the previous Government, during the time that the right hon. Gentleman was in office. Crime doubled. It increased faster than in any other western country. The chance of being a victim of crime trebled. The number of convictions and the proportion of convictions fell. The numbers of rapes, robberies and young offenders all rose. That was his record on crime.

All that is waffle. The accurate answer is that since the Prime Minister said that in-patient waiting lists were falling, the number has gone up by 36,000. There is no point in him shaking his head. That is the figure from the Department of Health. Out-patient waiting lists are a quarter of a million higher than when he took office. The assurances that he gave from the Dispatch Box on 15 December—only nine weeks ago on health and police numbers have already turned out to be complete and total rubbish. The Prime Minister also said in the House last year that he would deal better, more effectively and more quickly with asylum claims. Will he give us the latest figures for the number of asylum seekers?

The figures are 50,000 below the level that we inherited. There are more nurses in the health service than when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. There are more doctors in the health service. Waiting times are coming down and we have put massive new investment into the health service.

On this as well, the Prime Minister will not give us the figures. With his head for figures, no wonder it is taking him five days to count all those mayoral votes on his own. When he said last May that he would deal better, more effectively and more quickly with asylum claims, the backlog was 76,000 asylum seekers. Now it is 103,000. We have always known that he was not keeping the promises that he made at the last election. Now we know that he has not even kept the promises that he made in the House throughout last year. Waiting lists are higher when he said that they were going to fall, police numbers are lower when he said that they were going to rise and the asylum backlog is growing when he said that it was going to fall. Are not those facts the conclusive evidence that he is all mouth and no delivery?

Again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Now, as a result of the additional resources that we have put in, the immigration department is close to achieving 4,000 asylum decisions a month. That figure will rise to 8,000 a month by the late spring. The new rules will then come in and we shall be able to deal with asylum seekers more effectively.

Order. The House must come to order.

Just a few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the tax guarantee meant that the Conservatives would not increase public spending. So he cannot complain about the need for more police; they cost money. He cannot complain about the need for more nurses; they cost money. He cannot complain about the waiting lists; reducing them costs money. He cannot complain about asylum seekers; it costs money to deal with them. Yes, it is true that every single promise that we made—on getting waiting lists down, getting class sizes down and increasing police numbers—will be met by the next general election, as we said they would be. The public know that whereas we will invest more in public services, the right hon. Gentleman, through his tax guarantee, will cut public spending. The tax guarantee is a boom and bust guarantee and an NHS cuts guarantee. That is the difference between the two parties. However much the right hon. Gentleman wants public spending, Labour will put in the investment and the Conservatives would take it out.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the growth of the internet has brought with it a growth in at-home shopping and working and that those trends will lead to a reduction in the demand for office space and shopping space? As a result, there may be a new renaissance in building new homes in new townscapes that will be environmentally sustainable and economically effective, using the technologies of the new century.

It is important that we drive through the internet revolution and make sure that people have access to computer technology. When we came to office in 1997, around one in 10 schools were linked to the internet. By 2002, more than 23,000 schools will be connected, with computer training available to 400,000 teachers. We already have 15,000 schools online. In addition, we shall be giving people special help to take computer courses. In last year's Budget, we set a target for a national network of 1,000 computer learning centres—one for every community in Britain. That is one reason why the number of people in employment is 800,000 higher than it was when we took office.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the rumour that there will be a big increase in stamp duty on house purchase is being received with dismay in my constituency and elsewhere? Does he accept that this would push up the cost of purchasing a house in the south-east, where house prices are already expensive, and that it would reduce national mobility, particularly for those in the north who wished to move to the south? What would the purpose be of such a move, apart from being just another increase in taxation?

I shall treat that as an early Budget submission. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman's constituents were glad of an economy in which economic stability has been delivered, and we have 800,000 extra people in work, which stands in sharp contrast to the situation in the early 1990s—the last time the policies now advocated by his leader were pursued; they resulted in interest rates of 10 per cent. for four years or more, interest rates at 15 per cent. for one year or more, and literally millions of jobs lost.

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 60, line 37, leave out from "Ireland" to end of line 39.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 44, in page 60, line 39, at end insert—

'or

(d) any two or more local government administrative units in England and Wales.'.

I do not intend to dwell long on the amendments, which are relatively simple. Conservative Members are conscious of the fact that the measure provides for referendums to be held not only nationally, but in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and in any of the regions, as defined by the regional development agencies.

The amendments are rather mismatched. The first would delete one category of referendum. That is a mistake, because we need the widest possible range of options to ensure that the area in which opinions are sought, whatever its boundaries, comes within the purview of the Electoral Commission. As we want to bring all such matters under the control of the commission, it seems perverse to remove one category of referendum.

I shall be brief. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said about the two amendments.

The distance between us is very small, even though I will not accept the amendments. I do not agree with amendment No. 36, but I shall give some consideration to amendment No. 44, albeit not on this Bill. As I shall explain, there is a way of dealing with the issue other than trying to amend the Bill.

I thank the Minister for his response. I am slightly—I would not say entirely—reassured that he has taken on board our points, particularly on amendment No. 44. On the basis that he seems to accept their spirit and suggests that they should be incorporated in other, later legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 61, line 13, at end add—

'(6) The exact number, nature and wording of

(a) the question or questions, and

(b) the possible answers to each question

in a referendum or other poll to which this Part applies shall be determined after consultation with the Commission; and any views expressed by the Commission shall be published.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in clause 97, page 61, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 34 and insert—

`The date of the poll in the case of any referendum to which this Part applies shall be fixed by the Commission, and'.

'on the recommendation of the Commission'.

In responding to the previous group of amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), the Minister used some interesting turns of phrase, of which I made a note. He talked of, "We might as well put in place", "It will be convenient" and "It makes sense." I hope that he will respond to amendment No. 45 in a similar spirit, because it would make sense and be convenient to implement the provisions suggested in it and the consequential amendments that we have tabled.

So do I.

I am glad that the Minister takes the same line. His apt sedentary intervention underlines the need for the amendments.

The Committee knows that my hon. Friend's eloquence is legendary. Do I interpret him correctly if I say that, without the amendments that he is eloquently advocating, the danger is that the commission would be nothing but the Prime Minister's hapless glove puppet?

I am always reluctant to allow any colleague to put words into my mouth, particularly when they come from my hon. Friend's silver tongue. If we do not incorporate the amendment, the danger is that we shall have an emasculated commission, which, at the very point of delivery, cannot exert influence or even express an opinion.

I shall be brief. The independents have not been widely consulted on this measure. Indeed, regrettably, they have not been consulted at all. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was his belief that independents were usually Conservatives in disguise. That is not always and invariably the case.

The Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the amendment.

Primarily?

Having enunciated that novel—or perhaps traditional—Liberal Democrat policy, will the hon. Gentleman explain the ratio?

I am glad to have livened up the debate somewhat. The difficulty in discussing the Bill, as I said in a previous debate on the Floor of the House, is not that Members of Parliament are too poorly informed to discuss it—a fault that sometimes arises, if I may say so—but that we are too well informed to discuss it properly.

I have been a Member of Parliament for 16 years, but I never thought the day would come when I found myself in some agreement with a Conservative, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack); a Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell); and an Independent Member, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). I may get into trouble, but they have raised important points of principle about setting a fair question or series of questions in a referendum.

I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that one useful test of the fairness of a referendum question is whether the wording is acceptable to a professionally commissioned opinion pollster?

I am being too agreeable this afternoon. I agree that setting the question—whether in a social science research questionnaire, of which I have some experience, or, more importantly, in a referendum—is very important. It is essential therefore that, whichever party is in power, the electorate perceive referendum questions to be fair and above board. In 10 or 15 years' time, we may have a referendum in Scotland on whether to be independent or to maintain the United Kingdom, if I can call it that. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, there is nothing worse than a loaded question. We are dealing with a smart electorate, who are much more intelligent than some hon. Members—none of whom are present today, of course—believe.

The debate, including the Freudian speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), has been useful. However, I do not necessarily share his cynical view that politicians hold on to power. It could be argued that, given our unwritten constitution and the power of the Executive, abstinence from the abuse of power might sum up the whole of British constitutional history, at least in recent centuries. Perhaps we could argue that academically on another occasion.

I note that the Minister said that, ultimately, it should be for Parliament to decide the question. Does he accept that if the commission recommended a particular question and the Government of the day sought to persuade Parliament to accept an alternative form of words, the least that the Government would owe Parliament and the British public would be an explanation of their reasons for rejecting the recommendation?

The Government listen carefully to Parliament and the Home Office has shown repeatedly that it listens to debates in the House with care and notes the strength of the arguments. We reflect on those arguments and are prepared to change our view if they are good, but sometimes they are not so good and we tell people where to get off.

So the Government are motivated by charity.

The Government are motivated by the highest standards of national interest and concern.

Ah! The Minister says he hopes that I will feel able to withdraw "them". Well, I am perfectly content to withdraw amendment No. 45. The Minister has given a sympathetic and understanding answer; I believe him to be a man of his word, and I expect an amendment along the lines of amendment No. 45, giving the commission the role that he and I both want it to have, to be tabled on Report. If my inference is correct, we shall not press the amendment to a Division at this point, but, if the Minister does not table a similar amendment on Report, we shall do so then.

I want to reflect and consider. Obviously, consultations will be necessary. We spoke earlier of the need to consult devolved Executives, for instance. I am not giving the hon. Gentleman an undertaking; I am saying that I am very sympathetic, but wish to consider the matter further and undertake the proper consultations that I am sure he would want me to undertake before proposing such a measure.

It is early in the afternoon, and I am a man of infinite charity. I am therefore prepared to accept what the Minister has said in regard to amendment No. 45, but I must make plain our belief that my point—echoed, briefly but eloquently, by the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Bell), for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), and by my hon. and silver-tongued Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in his interventions—is important, and that the amendment is important. We want to return to the issue on Report if the Minister does not, and it is only right to give the Committee notice of that.

I do not want to take up the Committee's time, but we should widen the discussion a little to look at what clauses 96 and 97 contain, in the absence of amendment No. 46 which we discussed earlier. Clause 97 is of particular concern.

"the date so fixed shall not be earlier than 28 days after the end of the period"

"Nonetheless, the expectation in such cases will similarly be that there will be at least 28 days for campaigning following the designation of campaign organisations."

I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend's comments. I wonder whether his interpretation of the Bill is such that he believes that the 28-day period specified in clause 97 is relevant also to the powers that the Government would have to intervene and to make their case? Is it part of the quarantine period that the Government would have applied in communicating their own point of view? If so, such a period is not only very short, but highly relevant.

My hon. Friend has a good point. The clauses are complex, but the Minister may care to enlighten us. Certainly there is a whole series of mechanisms of interlinked timings. Part of that is the quarantine for the Government, which would run up to the time of the referendum. I would assume, therefore, that that is the time in which the umbrella organisations are up and running and the Government have no part in the proceedings. If I am wrong about that, the Minister will enlighten me.

We are considering clauses 96 and 97. In clause 96, we are ensuring that we establish a basis for subsequent clauses, in part VII, such as those providing for the designation of umbrella groups and for expenditure restrictions. Those later clauses lean heavily on the concept of there being a defined referendum period in which the provisions will apply.

Is it not the purpose of this legislation to impose a little fetter on the Government's ability to do that, or have I completely misunderstood why I have spent the past four weeks upstairs in Committee?

The hon. Gentleman knows well—he is a lawyer; he knows perfectly well—that the Bill cannot bind a future Parliament or prevent another Bill from being introduced that makes entirely different provision. He also knows that any Government who introduce legislation on a referendum will in all probability be raising a highly politically charged issue, and that the electorate will be very well briefed on the way in which the Government are handling the matter. If it is clear that a Government are seeking to fix the referendum—in other words to fix the voters—the electorate will not be terribly pleased. Any Government would be well aware of that.

The hon. Gentleman puts his case with disarming charm, but he knows that when a Government have a huge majority, as his Government currently enjoy, they can get away with whatever they want. We do not have a written constitution providing for qualified majority voting and a two-thirds vote in Parliament before a constitutional issue can be decided. If the Government decide that they are going to do something and they have a majority such as the present Government's, they can do it. That is why we are anxious for amendment No. 46, which we shall shortly press to a Division, to be inserted in the Bill and why we take the line that we do on these clauses.

That brings me back to the first point that I made in reply to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I disagreed with his cynical view about politicians and suggested that it was arguable that the history of our unwritten constitution was one of abstinence from the abuse of power by various Governments, taking cognisance of the fact that they are answerable to the electorate who will form a view about how they behave. They have to behave reasonably and deal with the electorate in a way that commands broad support. Every Member of Parliament is aware that a Government's majority—and their seat—can be taken away by the electorate. The majority in the Commons may be big or small, but even with a majority of one, a Government have power if they can carry the House. The size of a majority is not the issue. The issue is whether a Government can command support. Every Member of Parliament has to deal with their constituents and will be aware of the how the public will view the Government if the Government seek to abuse their power.

The Minister has missed the central point of the argument. Politics in this country is comparatively free of the abuses seen in some other democracies—and certainly in non-democracies—not because we have a better class of politician, but because we have a strong framework of regulation. The point of the Bill is to ensure that we have a strong framework for referendums, which are a new constitutional development. We are good because we are made good, not because we are good by intention. I hope that the Minister understands that that is how the system works. It is important to get these rules and regulations right, so that in 10 or 15 years we can still say the same thing.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the nature of the debate between the two Front-Bench spokesmen about whether everything has to be in the Bill so that it can become the basis of all future referendums. The reality is that Parliament makes laws. We do not simply have a system of regulations; we have a Parliament that is answerable to the electorate and a Government who have to respond to the electorate and are ultimately dependent on the electorate for their future.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall give way when I have finished this point.

I would rather make my own speech.

rose—

Then I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer).

Will the Minister explain the Government quarantine period? Are the 28 days the period during which the Government may not interfere, get involved financially or proselytise? Does he envisage a further period, or will he say that that is a matter for a future Bill, in which case what is the point of this one?

The quarantine period is covered later in the Bill, when we shall debate whether the Government could use their influence over civil servants. I must be careful what I say as I am conscious that you will rule us out of order, Mr. Martin, if we discuss a clause that we have not reached. We shall have the opportunity to debate the quarantine period, but our view is that it should be the same as it is during a general election campaign. It has never been a matter of great controversy in the past and I suspect that it need not be in future.

The Minister is quite right to say that Governments come and go and that the British public can take a view on whether they wish to continue with an Administration. The 28 days may be appropriate for that. However, the Minister will also be perfectly well aware that referendums are an attempt at a permanent settlement, and are therefore different in character from general elections. I cite that fact that because my party—that is why I support it so vigorously—is concerned about the position of the pound.