What representations he has received about the Care Standards Bill [Lords] in the last month. [118432]

What representations he has received about the Care Standards Bill [Lords] [118437]

In the context of the Care Standards Bill, I have received a number of representations relating to proposals for a children's commissioner for Wales. I am pleased to be able to confirm to the House today that the remit of the children's commissioner for Wales will extend to children coming within all the services to be regulated under the terms of the Care Standards Bill.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he list exactly those services that will be covered by the children's commissioner, and reassure us that the amendment will be drafted so as to give the National Assembly for Wales some powers to extend the role of the commissioner beyond that envisaged in the Bill?

As well as all children's homes, the commissioner will deal with services in private and voluntary hospitals, the welfare of children living away from home in boarding schools, fostering agencies, voluntary adoption agencies, local authority fostering and adoption services, welfare aspects of day care and child minding provision for the under-eights, residential family centres and children who receive special care in their own homes. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that my officials and Assembly officials are working together to prepare the amendment to the Care Standards Bill. We are in close contact with the Assembly about any future remit.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he reassure me that he will work closely with the Health and Social Services Secretary, Jane Hutt, and the Secretary for Education and Children, Rosemary Butler, to ensure that the final legislative powers of the children's commissioner apply to all children in Wales and have as their foundation the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, so that the powers extend beyond the powers provided in the Care Standards Bill?

Yes. The Assembly is still considering a wider role and remit. The Government will urgently and sympathetically consider proposals when they are ready, but I believe that the office of children's commissioner for Wales, set up as it will be under the Care Standards Bill and together with the additions and the work that the Assembly is doing, will mean that we are leading the United Kingdom and Europe in terms of such a role.

I welcome the answer from the Secretary of State, as far as it goes. Can he clarify what will be the position of children who live in their own homes and are on the at-risk register, but who may not be getting special provision? Will the legislation be broad enough to give the commissioner powers to deal with those children? If the Bill is not wide enough, what mechanism could be used to fast-track those additional powers, on which all parties agree?

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that he is interested in these matters. The Care Standards Bill will not cover the category of children that he mentioned, but the matter is under consideration by the Assembly, working together with my Department and others in London. We will try as fast as we can to ensure that we cover all the aspects of the role of the children's commissioner. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important for us to look carefully at the protocol that governs arrangements between the Assembly and the House of Commons as far as legislation is concerned, and I hope to return to those issues after the recess.

Will the regulations that flow from the Bill be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure?

That matter will be dealt with in Committee when the Care Standards Bill goes through its stages here.

In the light of the north Wales child abuse inquiry report and other matters, I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he will use the widest possible powers in the Care Standards Bill to develop the role of the commissioner. In the longer term, will he look to use other legislative opportunities, so that that role can develop to cover all matters that affect children and to ensure that the role is as comprehensive as possible?

Yes, I can give that assurance to my right hon. Friend, and it is good to see him in the Chamber. As I have said to other hon. Members today, these matters are being considered carefully by the Assembly, by my Department and by the Department of Health. I believe that the points made by my right hon. Friend are relevant and will be considered in detail as the Care Standards Bill goes through the House.

When he last met the Minister of Agriculture to discuss compensation for farmers in Wales in relation to the high value of the pound. [118433]

I am in regular and close contact with colleagues in the Cabinet and we discuss a wide range of issues, including the agriculture situation. Compensation for farmers and the high value of sterling were among the matters addressed at the recent agriculture summit chaired by the Prime Minister on 30 March.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the single most important factor in the crisis in farming is the high value of the pound? When will he get the agreement of the Treasury to apply for monetary compensatory amounts to compensate British farmers, given that the pound is overvalued against the currencies of competitor countries in the European Union?

I agree that the value of the pound is vital, and that is why the agriculture summit chaired by the Prime Minister addressed the issue. Of the £25 million of aid that has been given to Welsh farmers, £6 million is to go to sheep farmers, £2 million to beef farmers, and more than £2 million to dairy farmers. All that is to deal with the problems caused by the strength of the pound and will directly help farmers in Wales.

The National Farmers Union in Wales has greatly welcomed the package for farmers and the Government's commitment to agriculture. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that only 2 per cent. of the lamb consumed by British armed forces abroad is sourced from Wales? Will he endeavour to persuade his ministerial colleagues to adopt the same policy that has been adopted for beef, and source all lamb thus consumed from the United Kingdom?

I shall certainly take up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I can tell my hon. Friend that our armed forces are keen to support British products wherever possible, and that all the beef and pork that they use is provided by UK producers. However, I shall ensure that I raise the question of lamb with my Cabinet colleague.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) is this afternoon attending the installation of the high sheriff of Powys, but he and I would both like to know the answer to this question: when and how will the exchange rate compensation be paid to dairy farmers in Wales?

Obviously, the details of that are a matter for the National Assembly, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as they are known.

What discussions he has had with Assembly Secretaries concerning the implications of the housing Green Paper in Wales. [118434]

I discussed the housing Green Paper with the Assembly Secretary for Local Government and Housing, Mr. Peter Law, in our liaison meeting on 10 April.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, in many parts of Wales, such as the wards of Cathays, Plasnewydd and Roath in my constituency, and the constituency of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, there are extremely high densities of houses in multiple occupation. Tenants stay for only a short time, and landlords often do not maintain the houses properly. I welcome the Green Paper's conclusion that it may be possible to introduce a discretionary licensing scheme for local authorities. However, when my hon. Friend holds talks with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will he stress that, unless the licensing schemes cover HMOs used as student lets and areas of high demand as well as areas of low demand, they will be of little or no use to my constituency, or to other similar ones elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He often raises with me and with colleagues in the National Assembly issue of student accommodation. I know that he takes a great interest in the matter. The Government are committed to introducing a mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation as soon as there is an opportunity to do so. In the meantime, we are encouraging local authorities to develop local registration schemes.

The Labour Government came to power making extravagant boasts about what they would do about housing in Wales and elsewhere. Given that background, why have they spent less in their first three years in power than the previous Conservative Government spent in their final three years?

I shall defend the Government's record on housing against that of the hon. Gentleman's Government any time that he wants. There has been more investment in Wales and elsewhere as a result of the Government's achievements. The Green Paper outlines further steps for tackling neglect of the housing stock during the Conservatives' 18 years.

The Green Paper has been warmly welcomed by every agency in Wales involved in the provision of housing, whether private, public or voluntary. Is my hon. Friend aware that elderly people, of whom there are many in my constituency, have difficulties in looking after their properties once they retire? We welcome the near £30,000 allocated for care and repair, but more resources are required, and I ask my hon. Friend to bring that point to the attention of his colleagues.

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. The National Assembly recognises the need to improve and maintain housing stock in Wales. The Assembly has announced provision of £48 million to support strategic housing schemes and is undertaking a range of measures to support housing in Wales. The partnership between the Government and the National Assembly is tackling housing issues, and we accept that difficulties remain in many places. That work is a stark contrast with what the Conservative party did while it was in office.

In his discussions with the First Secretary, has the Minister raised the implications of the single-room rent restriction? It results in those under 25 getting into debt and often finding it difficult to get decent accommodation and becoming homeless. Will the restriction be repealed, and if so when?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Those areas do not fall within my direct responsibilities, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my relevant colleague at DETR, and I shall consider those issues in relation to Wales.

Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was Secretary of State for Wales the number of houses built in Wales fell by more than 3,000 compared with 1994? What are the prospects for housing in Wales in 2000–01?

As a constituency Member of Parliament, I recall that the number of life chance opportunities to receive housing in Wales diminished under the Conservative Administration. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), the Assembly has announced provision of an additional £48 million to support strategic housing schemes. In partnership with the British Government, the National Assembly will seek to ensure that more properties are available for rent, and for affordable rents. The Government and the Assembly are committed to tackling the housing backlog that the previous Government allowed to build up.

By how much, in real terms, the cost of running his office, or its predecessor, in (a) London and (b) Cardiff has changed since May 1997. [118436]

The cost of running the Welsh Office in 1997–98 was £70 million. For 1999–2000, the cost of running the Wales Office is estimated to be around £2 million. Costs in London and Cardiff are not held separately.

That is a most interesting answer, and one difficult to comprehend against a virtual doubling of Welsh Office staffing. People want the answers to two questions: how were those accounting figures arrived at, and how can the right hon. Gentleman justify costing more and delivering less?

Most people in Wales want to know whether their interests are properly represented in Westminster and Whitehall. On the hon. Gentleman's specific points, the figure of 26 staff for my office, which was suggested before devolution, was an early rough estimate. When I became Secretary of State, the staff complement was 37, and I expect it to be around 45 by the summer. The figure of 58, which is in the annual report, is a notional one. That number is allowed for in the budget, but I shall ensure that every post is subject to the closest scrutiny before any appointment is made. It is vital that Wales is properly represented at Westminster, and that can be done only if my office is adequately staffed. It is the smallest Department in Westminster, and is smaller than some district council chief executive's departments in Wales.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Conservative central office costs the taxpayer £3 million in Short money? Does he agree that the Wales Office offers the taxpayers of Britain a much better bargain?

Anything is a better bargain than Conservative central office.

The Secretary of State is of course aware that the House is considering several important Bills, including the Local Government Bill, the Care Standards Bill and the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, that will affect Wales. How many of his staff have been allocated to ensure that, during the passage of such Bills, sufficient care is taken that they are properly drafted to take into account the needs of the Assembly and that proper amendments are made in Committee?

About 13 of the staff to whom I have referred give advice on the whole range of Government and Assembly policy, and about a dozen are included in the Parliamentary branch and as special advisers. In addition, a part-time legal adviser deals with such matters. Furthermore, officials are seconded from the Assembly to deal with legislation.

The Secretary of State will have to give the House a better explanation of his staffing levels than he has done to date. Page 11 of the annual report states that the number of his staff is going up from 34 to 61. Even if that is a notional figure and the number rises only to 58, that is one heck of an increase.

The Secretary of State will retain a small team of civil servants to support his work.

I have already explained to the House the importance of maintaining a staff that is adequate and satisfactory, both to protect the devolution settlement and to liaise with Cardiff. By no stretch of the imagination could the number of people employed in my Department—they include messengers, paper handlers, receptionists and drivers—be regarded as big. What is important are the big issues with which we are dealing at present—including the question of the children's commissioner, on which I note that the hon. Gentleman did not want to comment. Such issues are hugely important—that is what matters to the people of Wales.

The Government must have known all that before the devolution referendum. We accept that the Secretary of State now has one fewer Minister in his Department, but the number of special advisers has doubled, and the number of his staff will double. Furthermore, the Welsh Assembly grows like Topsy, with four special advisers for its First Secretary. The cost of the Welsh Assembly building—thank goodness, that is on hold—was initially estimated at between £12 million and £17 million; it is now between £26 million and £30 million. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the additional costs for staff in his office? That money could supply 30 extra police or 70 extra nurses. Is it not far better to invest money in front-line services to help the people of Wales, rather than pampering the Secretary of State's virility by boosting the Murphy empire in London?

Empire! I am not much of an emperor. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about helping front-line services in Wales, perhaps he should refer, for example, to the £112 billion extra for the health service that came from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent Budget. However, a more important point in the context of his remarks is that either he wants Wales to be represented at the Cabinet table and on 22 Cabinet Committees and wants the House to take Welsh legislation seriously, or he does not. Obviously, he does not.

When he last met the First Secretary to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on rural communities in Wales. [118439]

I meet the First Secretary regularly and we discuss a range of issues. In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I presented the Government's legislative programme during two plenary sessions of the National Assembly for Wales in November and December last year.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the hard-pressed rural areas of Wales rely mainly on agriculture for their existence? Although he has announced some additional help, which is very welcome and wholly justified, does he accept that further assistance is required for those areas? Does he also accept that the caning of the motorist through Government policies does not help those areas where farmers rely entirely on their own transport and where most of their equipment is petrol or diesel-driven?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of agriculture to our rural areas. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed transport matters in the Budget in terms of the fuel duty escalator. The Government have also given help to hill farmers, beef farmers and dairy farmers. The Assembly is helping Wales through the rural development plan. The combination of the Government's policies and those of the Labour-led administration in Cardiff are suiting the rural areas of Wales well, and they could not have obtained a better deal.

I welcome the addition last night of new clause 1 to the Postal Services Bill, which will provide possible financial support for post offices when they move to automated credit transfer. It will provide an important safety net, especially for rural post offices. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in his discussions with the First Secretary, the Welsh Assembly is fully involved in drafting the detail of how the financial support will operate?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall raise the matter with the First Secretary when we next meet. I agree with my hon. Friend that rural post offices in Wales play a vital role in our communities. As he knows, we are updating our post office network through a major investment in automation. It is untrue to maintain that people in Wales will not be able to receive cash benefits in post offices after 2003. The Cabinet Office is soon to report on rural post offices, including those in Wales. I am pleased to say that, yesterday, the House approved what was then new clause 1, which will allow subsidies to be paid to post offices in Wales.

Legislation for Wales is enacted in the House. The First Secretary and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), whom I am pleased to see in his place, are both Members of this place. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when those Labour Members who sit both in the House and in the Welsh Assembly will participate in the Government's legislative programme? The latest figures show that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) have attended half time in Cardiff and have not voted once in the House since the summer. The First Secretary and his predecessor have voted only seven or eight times. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the by-elections will be held and when the people of Wales will be properly represented in the Government's legislative programme?

I am not quite sure what that has to do with rural areas and the original question. What right hon. and hon. Members do in this context is their own business. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, when the general election comes, those Members who hold a dual mandate will lose it. They will then concentrate on the National Assembly for Wales. Before the hon. Gentleman bandies his figures, he should take account of some of the figures that appeared in the list in The Western Mail.The Conservative Member who represented Clwyd, North-West, who is now an Assembly Member, came bottom of that list.

What representations he made to his Cabinet colleagues on the second report of the Welsh Affairs Committee Session 1999–2000 on "The Transport Bill and its Impact on Wales" (HC 287); and if he will make a statement. [118440]

1 have discussed this matter with ministerial colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, whose Department has responsibility for the Bill, is replying to the Committee on behalf of Government. The Wales Office has been consulted on the content of this reply.

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs canvassed the views of the National Assembly for Wales on the Transport Bill. It said that it wanted at least two Welsh members on the Strategic Rail Authority pro tem. We understood that the protocol was that the Minister would take the matter forward with Cabinet Ministers. Why is nothing happening?

The Wales Office has taken forward a number of issues that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has raised. We have taken on board the duty to consult the Assembly on the SRA member and on policies. We have also taken on board other issues. Wales has one member out of 15, which is on a par with Scotland. Anne Hemingway, who has been appointed, has been welcomed by the Assembly's Secretary with responsibilities for transport. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it is important now that the SRA gets on with the business of managing and supporting our railways, and that he is happy with, and supportive of, the member who has been appointed in consultation with the Assembly.

When he will next meet the Agriculture Secretary to discuss Welsh dairy fanning. [118441]

As I have said to the House, the agricultural summit that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister chaired earlier this month agreed on agrimonetary compensation worth about £2.3 million to Welsh dairy farmers. Other measures have also been introduced.

That sounds like a very big deal, but does it not cost 2p a pint more to produce milk in Wales than the money actually received at the farm gate? Is the Secretary of State aware that, when translated into real money, the announcement that he has just made is the equivalent to a subsidy of only 0.2 per cent. of 1p per pint? Is that not another example of a big Labour announcement and a small and ineffectual delivery?

What is a big deal in Wales for dairy farmers is not only the £2.3 million to which I have just referred. It is also the removal of dairy hygiene charges, which is worth £180,000; it is the Assembly helping with marketing, processing and productivity for supermarkets; it is meetings in Cardiff with the Agriculture Secretary and it is the establishment of a dairy helpline that was recently set up to give advice to farmers. In addition to that, £15 million extra has been given to Welsh farmers to sustain them in these difficult times. That is why the farming unions in Wales have warmly welcomed the package, which is more than the hon. Gentleman has done.

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

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

The brutal deaths in Zimbabwe bring home to us all the fragility of basic human rights around the world. Is the Prime Minister still "comfortable" with the Russian President, Mr. Putin, whose actions in Chechnya to win votes dwarf anything yet tried by the Mugabe regime? Is the Prime Minister still comfortable with Mr. Putin, whose attack in London on Muslims was couched in such fascist terms? If the Prime Minister is still comfortable with Mr. Putin, why should any of us still feel comfortable with this Prime Minister?

First, I was pleased that President Putin came to this country; I think that it is an important relationship. We made clear our concerns over human rights in Chechnya and those concerns were expressed very forcefully to him. However, I also said—and I believe it—that it is better that we remain engaged with Russia rather than isolate it. I believe that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of the international community. I find it curious that members of today's Conservative party do not want us to welcome President Putin here from Russia; they do not want us to welcome the President of China here; they no doubt do not make any European leaders very welcome, and when we have closer relations with the Americans we are the Americans' poodle. I do not think that Conservative foreign policy is a very good basis upon which to conduct the foreign policy of this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Monday's announcement of £100 million of state aid to the British coal industry, following hard on the heels of an extra £200 million of assistance to British farmers, demonstrates clearly to the people of a constituency such as Selby—which happens to have 3,000 farmers and 3,000 miners—that this Government, unlike some in the 1980s and 1990s, will not pass idly by on the other side of the road when communities are in trouble, but will provide assistance to manage economic change?

It is important—particularly if there is a relaxation of the stricter gas consents policy—that we provide finance for the coal industry to go through the period of restructuring in which it is engaged. That helps people with their jobs, and it also helps with a more balanced energy policy for this country. It is right that this Government—in circumstances where industrial restructuring is taking place—stand behind people, help them and work hard for their future.

The whole House will have been horrified to hear of the brutal murders that have taken place in Zimbabwe in recent days. Given the daily deepening crisis, is it not now clear that the right vehicle for a firm response is the Commonwealth? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government would have the support of the Opposition for initiating in the Commonwealth decisions on at least the possibility of suspending Zimbabwe and for investigating the possibility of freezing the international assets of Mugabe and his associates?

Of course the situation in Zimbabwe is disgraceful and we condemn utterly the barbaric attacks on farmers, which are totally unacceptable. The question is what should be the right response of this country. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are in touch not only with other African leaders in the area, but with people who represent the Opposition and the farmers union in Zimbabwe. It is important to consult those people and take their advice, and we are acting in accordance with that advice.

Of course I am grateful for the Prime Minister's reply, although many people might think that 10 days is a long time to wait for a Commonwealth meeting when events are moving on by the hour and it must be possible to have an earlier meeting. It is also important to listen to Opposition figures and others in Zimbabwe. However, Mr. Chavanduka, the editor of the Zimbabwe Standard, asks:

How much worse must the situation in Zimbabwe get before action is taken? Words will not affect Mugabe, but pressure from Britain might.

The meeting is, as I said, taking place in about 10days, but we have already been in touch with Commonwealth partners, as well as with the United Nations; indeed, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, last night. We have also been in detailed touch with Opposition leaders. The leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change rejected a call from the British Conservative Opposition to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. I point out also that Mr. Tim Henwood, the president of the Commercial Farmers Union in Zimbabwe, has said:

I call on everyone involved internally and externally to refrain from emotional reaction and interference. Zimbabweans will solve this problem.

The House will welcome the Prime Minister's measured response to this delicate, difficult situation. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the rule of law. The Prime Minister has referred to the United Nations, the European Union and Commonwealth countries. Will he give the House an assurance that he and his Government will take a positive lead to ensure that the rule of law is restored in Zimbabwe?

Of course we will do so. However, as I pointed out a moment ago, we will do so in the way that is most helpful to the people in Zimbabwe.

The whole House will share the sense of revulsion about the murderous events in Zimbabwe. Does the Prime Minister concur that talk of sanctions at this time could only help to solidify President Mugabe's position and allow him to return to his rhetoric about colonialism and external threat, and to make a dangerous situation worse? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the real priority for the Foreign Office and the Government is to get President Mugabe to return to his senses on this issue and agree to a restoration of the rule of law, stop the incitement to violence from the top and, most important, sign up internationally, in front of the global community, to a firm date for full and free democratic elections?

Those are sensible propositions. That is precisely what we should be doing and it is what we shall do.

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. There might yet prove to be a need for an asylum option for some of those who are under threat, either opposition politicians or farmers. As this country historically and internationally has a proud and noble tradition of offering asylum, will the Prime Minister assure the House that, if any opposition politicians or farmers from Zimbabwe come to this country, they will not be greeted by a detention camp, as the Conservatives have proposed?

There are abuses of the asylum system, and we are dealing with those abuses. However, I agree that it is important that we all deal with that issue in a responsible manner.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that today is an historic day for millions of disabled people in Britain, with the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission? Will he join me in congratulating the commission and its chair, Bert Massie, who today made it clear that, either by force of argument or by force of law, the commission will ensure that never again will disabled people in Britain be regarded as second-class citizens?

It would not be right to welcome the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission without also paying tribute to my right hon. Friend and all the work that he has done over many years for disabled people. The essence of the proposal, which we as a Government were proud to introduce, is to ensure that disabled members of our society are full and equal participating members of that society. We are proud that that is so.

Does the Prime Minister agree that people's confidence in politics is often undermined by politicians' deceptive use of language and their economy with the facts?

Of course I do.

Consequent to the reference made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to politicians' use of language, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in commending the Home Secretary who, last week, gave indefinite right of entry to a Kurdish boy in my constituency who, last year, at the age of 13, escaped from Iraqi murderers and torturers to arrive in this country? Which does my right hon. Friend regard as preferable: that the boy should have been allowed to await the decision of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in my constituency with his elder brother, who already has refugee status; or that he should have been put in a prison camp, as the leader of the Conservative party proposes?

I think that my right hon. Friend's point is that it is important to make a distinction. As I said, there are real abuses of the asylum system and we have to deal with those abuses. That was the purpose of the legislation introduced last year and it is the purpose of the measures that we are taking now. However, this country should always be willing to take in those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. That is a noble tradition of ours and I, for one, would not like to see it disappear.

Given that three sub-post offices have recently closed in my constituency and that last night the Postal Services Bill was amended so that the Secretary of State may take powers to devise a scheme to maintain the sub-post office network, will the Prime Minister say when those powers will be taken and what the detailed contents of the scheme will be, so that those who have to invest in such a vital service to my community know when they can do so?

That is precisely the reason why we have a process in place that allows us to discuss with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses the need to ensure that post offices have a viable future. The powers taken under the legislation add a further dimension, by allowing us to ensure that they have a future. As I said last week, of course there has to be change and of course post offices will do new things in future. Inevitably, larger numbers of people will want to receive their benefits—whether child benefit or their pension—through their bank account. We are sitting down with the parties now and working out a programme for the future. That is the right way to proceed.

While I do not doubt that the Prime Minister is as pleased as any Member of Parliament by the drop in the unemployment figures announced today and by yesterday's announcement that long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 35 years, does he accept that his Government will be judged not by those things but by the way in which they improve the standard of living of poor and middle-income families, who suffered so much under the Conservatives?

I am delighted that employment is up to a new record level of 27.8 million. Well over 800,000 more people are in work today than when we came to office; 420,000 young people have joined the new deal, with more than 190,000 of them in jobs; and long-term and youth unemployment are down by 70 per cent. since the election. That is a Labour Government delivering for the British people.

Why has the Prime Minister refused to take any action over a clear breach of the ministerial code by the Deputy Prime Minister? Is it not absurd to have delegated that matter to be resolved by the Deputy Prime Minister himself?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says at all.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that people and political parties who go around stirring up issues relating to the plight of asylum seekers in Britain breed only intolerance and disharmony in our society, and that we, along with everyone in this nation, should seek a society that is more tolerant to the plight of those individuals?

As I have said, the problem with the asylum system is being sorted out by the measures that the Government have taken, but it is important to remember that the problem is not exclusive to Britain—it occurs throughout Europe. Although one would not know it to read some of the information in the media on the subject, Britain is around ninth out of 15 in terms of the number of asylum applications per head; Germany has more asylum seekers than us; in Switzerland the numbers have doubled; in Belgium and Austria they have tripled; and, as I discovered last night in the course of other conversations in Ireland, asylum seekers are a problem there too. It is important to recognise that it is a problem that we need to deal with. We are dealing with it, but—this is the point that my hon. Friend rightly makes—it should be dealt with in a reasonable, responsible and tolerant manner.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in the financial year just ended, the Government spent £633 million more on the cost of administration in Whitehall than even they had planned, and that the cost of running No. 10 Downing street rose by 23 per cent. in a single year?

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to raise the issue of asylum.

The Prime Minister says that I am wrong, but these are the Government's figures published by the Government last week. The right hon. Gentleman is spending £10 million on his own office. These figures are available for £15.30. He says that the costs of Government are falling in real terms, but when inflation is 2 per cent. and his costs in No. 10 Downing street go up by 23 per cent., how can they be falling in real terms?

I do not accept that. Again, in real terms, the cost of Government is falling. The percentage costs of Government are lower than when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. The right hon. Gentleman is simply dealing with cash money, not real-terms figures, as he knows perfectly well. If we take the real-terms figures, we are spending less. As for the money in No. 10 Downing street—[Interruption.]I am just informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there has been a threefold increase in the Opposition's Short pot, so when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet for the third time, he can offer us our first spending cut.

The Prime Minister will not answer the question. He says that he does not accept the figures, but they are the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures. How has the Lord Chancellor spent £100 million? He cannot have spent it all on wallpaper. [Interruption.]Instead of conferring with the Home Secretary, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government plan the first increase in the number of civil servants in a quarter of a century, and that the cost of running the Department of Trade and Industry has risen by £114 million in three years?

No, I will not confirm that. Why does the right hon. Gentleman raise the matter? I shall explain: he has a big hole in his tax and spending plans, so he runs around the country claiming that if he gets rid of a few special advisers he can rebuild the health service and cut everyone's taxes. He has said that he will cut everyone's taxes, spend the same amount of money, and spend even more on defence, farmers, local government—and asylum to judge from yesterday's reports. He makes his pathetic attempt at the Dispatch Box because Haguenomics is beginning to be found out. By the time we get through with the Conservative party in the next general election, the right hon. Gentleman's economic policy will be in ruins along with his party.

So, the right hon. Gentleman will not confirm the figures; he does not like the figures—[Interruption.]

Order.

So now we know—[Interruption.]

Order. That does not mean the noise can start again.

Now we know that the Lord Chancellor spends an extra £100 million, and the Prime Minister does not know why; the Department of Trade and Industry spends £114 million more, and he does not know why; the Home Office spends £440 million more, and he does not know why. According to the Government's own figures, they spend £2,000 million more on pen pushers, not police; on bureaucrats, not teachers; on spin doctors, not real doctors. The Government tax so much more, but deliver so much less.

All I can say on value for money is that if the right hon. Gentleman gets three times the amount of Short money, he should get better advice.

More!

Not today.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that the number of nurses is up. I went to my local pathology department in Huddersfield royal infirmary last week—I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time to visit it. It was clear from my visit that the Labour Government arrived not a day too soon to provide much-needed investment. The 8.75 per cent. in cash terms—more than 7 per cent. in real terms—is a genuine investment, and the modernisation fund is also important to departments such as pathology departments. What advice would my right hon. Friend give the Huddersfield royal infirmary and other trusts when they apply to the modernisation fund this month?

The modernisation fund is an important part not only of getting more nurses into the health service but of ensuring that we modernise facilities. That is why all the accident and emergency departments in the country are being modernised if they wish. The Opposition, through their medical insurance plans and their refusal to support the increases in tobacco duty, have a £1.5 billion hole in their accounts. If they were re-elected, there would be fewer nurses and less modernisation in the national health service. That is one very good reason why it is not safe in their hands and never has been.

Is the Prime Minister able to reassure disillusioned pensioners that Blairism has succeeded, or are the press reports true which say that his party has effectively written off pensioners as a group worth cultivating?

No, they are not true at all. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what we have done for pensioners: there is an extra £6.5 billion of spending; 1 million pensioners are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee; pensioner households have the £150 winter fuel allowance, and there are free eye tests for those pensioners as well; value added tax on fuel has been cut; and the over-75s in his constituency will have free television licences. Of course pensioners want us to do even more, but the one thing they should know is that if they ever got a Conservative Government back, those changes would be reversed and that money taken off them.

My right hon. Friend is aware that I have the honour to represent a number of survivors of the Nazi holocaust. Does he agree that many of those who find safety in this country contribute to the well-being and richness of our nation? Does he share my view that there is nothing at all patriotic about threatening to incarcerate every asylum seeker while campaigning for the freedom of dictators such as Pinochet?

Again, let me emphasise what we are doing to tackle abuses. We are speeding up the process and 11,000 decisions are being taken in a month. We are hiring extra immigration officials—another 700. The new changes such as the withdrawal of cash benefit and the introduction of fines for hauliers who take part in illegal immigration will enable us to tighten up the system and make sure that those who abuse it are not allowed to do so; but I say to my hon. Friend, as I said to the House a moment or two ago, there is a duty on us all to treat this issue responsibly and not inflame or exploit it. We need to tackle the abuses of the system. We are doing that, but we should never turn our backs on those fleeing persecution and we should never put at risk our reputation as a tolerant, multiracial society. We should be proud of it.

On top of the highest petrol prices in Europe and a collapse in farm incomes, is the Prime Minister aware of the impact in a rural area such as Suffolk of council tax increases of four times the rate of inflation? The county council has put the tax up by 28 per cent. over the three years since he took office. To whom does he ascribe that huge increase—central Government or the county council, which is Labour led but propped up by his friends, the Liberal Democrats?

First, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the average council tax is less in Labour areas than in Conservative areas. Secondly, under the previous Government there was a 19 per cent. council tax increase in the few years before we took office. In relation to the countryside and farmers, we announced a package that included both short-term aid and long-term help for the farming industry, but demands for extra spending made in the House do not sit well in the mouths of Conservative Members who tell their constituents that they will cut everybody's taxes. At some point, as we discovered with the Leader of the Opposition earlier, they will have to make a choice.

Health service funding in Warwickshire has increased by £60 million since the general election—a 30 per cent. increase in cash terms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any party that claimed that it could sustain such increased investment in health care while cutting taxes, regardless of the economy's performance, would be all mouth and no credibility?

It is the Conservative party's position that it would reintroduce private medical insurance measures, which would be an immediate £500 million cost just for those who already have it. [Interruption.] Conservative Members shake their heads, but that is their policy. At some point, if they want to be taken seriously, they should start defending it openly. They would spend less money on health, and their tax and spending plans do not add up, but the important thing is that, having sorted out the public finances and laid the foundations of a stable economy, we are able to make an extra investment in the health service—not only this year, but in succeeding years as well. That is why I can tell the House the latest figures on nurses: 5,500 more nurses have come back to nursing and the number of student nurses has risen from 11,200 to 16,000. We are laying the foundations for a better-staffed health service for the future.

Rural fire services have vast areas to cover and they are under constant financial pressure. They are essential services that we all value. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be in the interests of council tax payers if fire authorities, like the police, were separate precepting authorities for the purposes of that tax?

I know that in the hon. Gentleman' s constituency and in many others people want additional spending, but the Liberal Democrats cannot carry on asking for more and more spending without saying where that money would come from. If they say that there should be more spending, it is important that they are honest about their tax plans. The hon. Gentleman talks about a separate precept as if that meant nothing. He presumably wants a separate precept so as to raise the amount of money taken from it.