What estimate she has made of the economic costs of addiction to hard drugs in respect of (a) the national health service and (b) police forces in England and Wales. [124262]

Drug misuse costs Britain more than £4 billion each year in crime, sickness and absenteeism. The Government are fully committed to tackling this problem. That is why we pledged an additional £217 million as part of the 1998 comprehensive spending review for anti-drugs activities. We are currently finalising the spending for the next three years and will announce details of future funding in support of the Government's drugs strategy very shortly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. First, in view of those remarkable figures, does she agree that the importance of treatment for addiction is becoming even more important? What steps are being taken to improve facilities for treatment?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, more than £70 million of the sum that I mentioned was allocated to health and local authorities to fund new treatment services. We fundamentally believe that treatment works; we have the research and the figures to show it. A further £133 million was allocated to the criminal justice system to help to break the links between drug misuse and crime. We have also advertised for an extra 300 counsellors, and we hope shortly to start training them. Treatment is one of our areas of focus.

Will the Minister tell us whether the strategy is yet scoring any successes in reducing the amount of drug use? As police resources become ever more stretched, police forces often do not pursue drug offences. They follow up other offences that are more likely to be reported to them. Drug offences tend not to be reported to the police, so they have to take a proactive approach to such offences.

There are signs that we are making progress slowly. We have a 10-year strategy because, as we have frequently said, we shall not be able to deal with the problem overnight. Referrals in the prison system for offences and some of the figures—the figures in different reports often contradict each other—show that, overall, the trend is that we are making progress in dealing with the problems of young people and reoffending in prisons. Police forces are doing a good job in focusing on the killer drugs—heroin and cocaine—so I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the evidence that I have suggests that we are making progress. However, we have a 10-year strategy because dealing with the problem will take time.

If she will make a statement about her plans to improve the system of confiscation of the profits accruing from drug-related crime. [124263]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this morning in response to a question for written answer from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), we have today published the performance and innovation unit report on "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime". Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and Libraries of the House.

Can that strategy deal with the problem of drug traffickers who have managed somehow to dissociate themselves directly from drug trafficking itself?

Yes, absolutely. First, in criminal law, those on indictment for serious crimes will, for the first time ever, be obliged to put details of their assets before the court, which will then determine the process for seizing or freezing those assets before any trial.

We welcome moves to improve the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. Surely, however, we are not talking just about the profits of crime. Is the Minister aware that substantial powers already exist under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995? As courts already have those powers, is the reason why more confiscations are not being made that there is insufficient funding for the extensive financial investigations required?

It is typical of the party of Michael Ashcroft that Conservative Members cannot give an absolute commitment to deal with the return of resources. Those powers are available to the courts at present. However, the problem is that the law is complex and is located in three separate legislative processes. We are bringing those processes together in a single process. In addition, we are giving the courts new powers and there will be a new organisation to seek out and to seize those assets, which is a major improvement. We are resolutely committed to disrupting, undermining and closing down criminal enterprises, unlike the previous Government.

Is it not the case that the Inland Revenue has powers to enforce the removal of assets? As long ago as 1996, the Office for National Statistics estimated that the income generated from drugs, prostitution, the sale of stolen goods and illegal gambling was in excess of £11 billion. Could we not do more to rationalise the tax legislation, to make those powers more effective and to encourage the Inland Revenue to work more closely with the law enforcement agencies?

The report makes recommendations, along the precise lines mentioned by my hon. Friend, which deal with money laundering and the role of the Inland Revenue in working with our criminal intelligence organisations and our law enforcement agencies. Nobody—but nobody—who has an income should fail to pay tax on it. The reality is that the Mr. Bigs of crime normally have assets involving huge sums of money and other resources gained from criminal activity, but they do not pay tax on them. The system will change radically. Action in civil and criminal law will feature, as will action in the tax system. We should remember that Al Capone eventually came to his end through non-payment of tax.

If she will make a statement on her role in co-ordinating Government policies on rural affairs. [124264]

I chair the ministerial rural affairs group, which co-ordinates Government policy on rural issues. I have no direct responsibility for any specific area of rural policy, but my Committee co-ordinates the work of other Departments to ensure that the policy is fully implemented.

Following the Prime Minister's famous speech to the Women's Institute, in which he did not once refer to farming or the countryside, will the Minister instigate a review of Government policies on the countryside, those who live there and rural affairs in general? What future can the Government offer to those who live in the country? What will happen about the high cost of petrol and the crisis in farming? What future is possible for village shops and rural post offices?

Many of the topics covered in the Prime Minister's speech inevitably affect rural areas. There are no separate policies for rural and urban areas: all our policies, including the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, are for urban and rural areas. I therefore deny the hon. Lady's point. She asked for more work to be done on rural areas. A rural White Paper is being drawn up and is being consulted on. It will shortly be published, along with the urban White Paper.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the scale of the task that confronts the Government in regenerating rural communities? Is she aware that, under the Conservatives, between 1982 and 1997, 450 village schools closed, and that our record in government is the closure of six schools since 1997? Is she aware that the deregulation of buses led to 86 per cent. of my parishes in Shropshire being deprived of a daily bus service? Is she aware that privatisation of the railways led to the deletion of the Shrewsbury-Telford to London intercity service in 1992? Is she aware that nine cottage hospitals closed in Shropshire and that 18 rural—

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman applied for an Adjournment debate on this subject. It is for that reason that I gave him an opportunity to ask one question. I think that he has done rather well and I must ask for a response now.

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing with his Back-Bench committee on rural affairs. Its members have brought a number of specific best practices from their constituencies that we as a Government have considered. I hope that they will see many of the results that they are looking for in the rural White Paper. We are making an effort to join up Government Department's initiatives to make a real difference in rural communities.

Will the Minister deal with specific questions in relation to organic food production? Can she give an undertaking on behalf of her group that, across government, there will be positive action to deal with the potential contamination of organic crops by genetically modified crops? Can she give an undertaking that she will tackle the trade imbalance? She will be aware that three quarters of the organic food available to consumers in this country is imported. Can she give an undertaking that that situation will be addressed and that specific targets will be included in the rural White Paper?

The comments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment yesterday were a straightforward, clear statement of the nature of the risk and how it operates. I fully concur with those comments.

Order. This is Question Time. I insist that Ministers as well as Members make it a brisk exchange. That is really what it is all about.

Everyone in rural areas and elsewhere will have welcomed the Government's decision to ask the performance and innovation unit to have a look at the future of the Post Office. Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to tell the House when the report is likely to appear?

I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific date, but I can assure him that, alongside what my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness has done, we will look carefully at the PIU report. In view of previous reports, I hope that some constructive suggestions and lateral thinking will come out of it to help post offices. We are determined to do all that we can in addition to the 50 per cent. rate relief that we already offer and all the other efforts that we are making, including extra money for e-commerce and financial services, to ensure that post offices stay open in rural areas.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that in some areas, especially hill areas, there is a real rural crisis? Subsistence farmers have negative incomes and many small businesses have suffered the knock-on effects. Can she confirm that, in her role as co-ordinator of Government policy, she will co-operate with Ministers in the National Assembly for Wales to produce an integrated policy to tackle those problems?

As I said, we are more than willing to work alongside Ministers from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it is a two-way street.

Does the Minister realise that the role of sub-post offices in rural areas is vital, that 383 of them have closed in the past financial year and that, as chairman of the Rural Affairs Group, she has a classic opportunity to bang heads together in the Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, of Trade and Industry and of Social Security? Will she therefore pledge today that the rural White Paper will include a commitment to maintain the network of rural sub-post offices?

I pledge today that we will work as hard as we are doing—not, as the hon. Gentleman's party suggested, to privatise post offices, but to support them. We have already given them 50 per cent. rate relief. We are committed to protecting the rural network, even though, as I readily acknowledge, some sub-post offices have closed. We regret every one that closes because that limits the possibilities for rural communities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness has made it clear that we are committed to ensuring a future for the post offices and, at the moment, we are providing access to financial services, e-commerce and Government services. We are investing a lot to ensure that the Post Office network is viable in future.

When my right hon. Friend looks into rural affairs, will she ensure that the truth is told about how many jobs may be lost if hunting is banned?

The Burns report did exactly that. The facts are there; we hope that hon. Members read them. There will be a free vote so that hon. Members on both sides of the House may vote the way that they want.

What representations she has received from the performance and innovation unit on proposals to confiscate the assets of criminals. [124265]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Will the Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and confirm that powers to confiscate the assets of drug dealers were introduced under the previous Government by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and that the Prime Minister's recent pronouncements on the subject, before the PIU had reported to the House, were just a cynical and desperate attempt to seize back the agenda from the Conservative party, which has tough and common-sense policies on law and order, by a Government who talk tough on crime but act weak?

The hon. Gentleman's comments show just how out of touch the Conservative party is. If he had read the report, he would realise that we are going further than the previous Government ever attempted. We are interested not just in drugs barons, but in all big-time criminals. The proposals will lead to the confiscation of their assets, whatever the crime—whether it is their house, cars, antiques, money or resources that they try to siphon off to members of their family. At last, the Government are on the side of the citizen and not, like Conservative Members, on the side of the criminal.

Withdraw.

Order. The Minister might withdraw that last remark.

I withdraw it, but it was in the context of the final comment made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). His party could have dealt with the matter but refused to do so.

In considering the seizing of criminal assets, will my right hon. Friend ensure that tough action and suspension of assets occur not at the end of a court case but at the beginning? Further to that, will confiscation of drug dealers' assets apply not just to drug dealers themselves, but to close family and close acquaintances, to whom money might have been siphoned off?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue is whether the assets are gained from illegal activity. Whatever assets criminals attempt to hide will not matter; if it is proven that they are the ill-gotten gains of criminal activity, we will seize them.

If the information held on the knowledge network computer system will be available to the public on the internet. [124266]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has made it clear in written answers to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) that as much information as possible that is held on the knowledge network will be made available to the public.

I understood the right hon. Lady to tell the House on 8 March that all the information on the knowledge network would be put on the net. Indeed, she provided a precise reassurance to hon. Members to that effect. What or who has made her change her mind?

All the information that it is possible to put on the net will be put on the net. Clearly, some of the information that will be held on the knowledge network will be commercially confidential, and it would be wrong of this Government or any other Government to make that information available on the net.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my hon. Friend's question. The right hon. Lady said:

All the work done in that unit will be put on the net so there will be no question of work being done that even the hon. Gentleman—

will not see.—[Official Report, 8 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 993.]

The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly wish us to put commercially sensitive information on the net. The Government whom he supported did not do that. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration, Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, made it clear that the knowledge network would not be used for party political purposes. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman gets it wrong and carries on chuntering. He supports a party that left the Government's IT in the neolithic age. When the Conservative Government left office, it was not possible for Departments even to communicate with one another by e-mail, so it is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman is ignorant of what is going on.

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of drugs action teams in shire counties. [124267]

The effectiveness of drugs action teams is measured by an annual planning and reporting process based on plans and reports submitted by each drugs action team. The analysis of this year's plans and reports is currently under way and will be published shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is extremely difficult for a single anti-drugs co-ordinator to drive forward multi-agency work across a large shire county where the main population centres are spread around? Does she agree that we need additional sub-co-ordinators in population centres such as Lowestoft in Suffolk to spearhead local action? Drugs are still a huge problem in town and country. Do we not need to do even more at local level, including allocating more money for treatment?

As I said in answer to Question 1, we have already increased this year's spending, particularly for treatment. From the reports of the drugs action teams in my hon. Friend's constituency, it is clear that increased provision for treatment is desperately needed. That is in hand. Whether the local drugs action teams decide to have regional co-ordinators is a decision for them. What we are doing is joining up government nationally, but not telling the teams what to do locally. We are recommending various methods that have been shown to work in some districts, and letting them choose.

Is not the effectiveness of drugs action teams' work in shire counties indirectly but inextricably bound up with the deterrent impact of successful police investigations? To that end, what assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the criteria for and the resources available to surveillance operations?

Co-ordination in large shire counties is not always difficult. I visited two recently, and both were excellent examples. If the hon. Gentleman has identified specific problems in his own county, I am most willing to look into them. On his final point, we are co-ordinating across security, police and other groups whose task is to stop the drugs coming in. We are also co-ordinating on prevention, education and more education in schools to make sure that we attack drugs from every possible angle.

What progress is being made on combating the increase in illegal drug use, with particular reference to rural areas. [124269]

The Government's 10-year strategy, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", is designed to combat drug misuse in all parts of the United Kingdom, urban or rural.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety in rural areas about the increase in drug abuse? Will she outline the measures that she is taking to ensure the expansion of treatment centres in rural areas?

I am well aware of the anxiety in rural areas. Again, the problem is both urban and rural. Drugs are not confined to the urban or the rural communities. We are doing our best, through the central direct treatment agency, to ensure that the need in urban and rural areas is fulfilled. We have advertised for 300 additional counsellors, whom we shall train, initially to make it possible for treatment to increase.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 June.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I sent him last month to seek his personal interest in the anxieties of resort authorities, such as those in our constituencies, that wish to play their part in the national dispersal scheme for asylum seekers but are experiencing specific problems with their placement in our core tourist areas? Will the Government respond positively to the representations that they have received from the Local Government Association to give local control to local authorities for placing asylum seekers in their areas? That would also be in the best interests of the refugees, because it would mean the efficient provision of the education and social services that they need.

It is precisely for that reason that we are working closely with the Local Government Association. We must have a proper system for dispersal. However, it is important that we do it in consultation with the local authorities. We are doing that.

Is the Prime Minister aware that when the Minister with responsibility for pensions addressed the Scottish Pensioners Forum, he received a similar reception to that of the Prime Minister at the Women's Institute? Bearing in mind the fact that many pensioners view the 75p increase as an insult, will the Prime Minister try to ensure a fairer deal for all pensioners by restoring the link between pensions and earnings, which was introduced by the last Labour Government and abolished by the Tories?

I hope very much that my hon. Friend—the hon. Gentleman—takes account of the fact that we have given pensioners the winter fuel allowance, which will be £150 this autumn, that 1 million pensioners will be better off by £20 a week through the minimum income guarantee, that we are providing free television licences for the over-75s and free eye tests for pensioners, and that the cut on VAT in fuel also helps pensioners. Yes, we have much more to do, but we will have spent £6.5 billion on pensioners in this Parliament. When pensioners realise that, they will know who the true friends of pensioners are, and who are their true enemies.

Now that we have one faction of the Cabinet—the Trade Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Agriculture Minister and the Northern Ireland Secretary—who want the Government to campaign for joining the euro now, and another faction— the Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Education and Employment Secretary—who want to keep it quiet and join by stealth, when will the Prime Minister get a grip, end the Cabinet confusion and stop his Cabinet Ministers fighting like ferrets in a sack?

On the idea that we intend to join the single currency by stealth, the Labour party promises a referendum—that is a curious form of stealth. The policy has been set out on numerous occasions by me, the Chancellor and the other Ministers: in principle, we are in favour a successful single currency; in practice, the economic conditions must be fulfilled.

Everyone else in the country knows that the Cabinet is divided. This Cabinet is out of date. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not know that times have changed; it is this Cabinet that is divided. We knew that the right hon. Gentleman was out of touch with the country; now he is even out of touch with his own Cabinet. The Trade Secretary said:

We have to be putting the case for the euro.

As long as we're outside the euro, there's little we can do to protect industry—

The Northern Ireland Secretary has the economic intelligence of a pea …

As the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from the Trade Secretary's speech, let me quote it in full if I may. He said:

We will judge if the five tests have been met early in the next Parliament. If the economic tests are satisfied, then we should join the single currency—if that is what the Government, Parliament and the people decide.

The potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability.—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 583.]

Sadly, the basic case for being in the EU once again needs making. To be pro-European does not mean being anti-British—indeed I would argue the precise reverse.

Our policy on the euro is settled— [Interruption.] That is because I lead my party and the right hon. Gentleman now follows his. The Prime Minister wrote yesterday that he thought that the euro was a great success. He now courageously uses articles to say things because people cannot slow handclap an article. He is spending tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money preparing to join the euro. He is telling business to spend hundreds of millions preparing to join the euro. He obviously wants to join the euro, so when will he put his mouth where he puts other people's money and risk his own capital campaigning to join the euro?

First, the money that has been spent—the majority of it—has been spent on preparing British business for the fact that the euro will be a fact and that the notes and coins will be in circulation, but, as I understood it, the Opposition's policy was to rule it out in principle, but only for a Parliament.

Is not the real reason that the Government are in such chaos on the euro spelled out in the memo written by the right hon. Gentleman's chief guru, Philip Gould? It reads:

From Philip to Alastair.

Once again TB is pandering, lacking conviction, unable to hold to a position for more than a few weeks, lacking the guts to be able to tough it out …

TB … lacks conviction, he's all spin and presentation, he just says things to please people not because he believes them. TB has not delivered. He is out of touch.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not careful, I shall read out what focus groups say about him. [Interruption.] I shall spare him that. [Interruption.]

Order. Valuable time is being used up.

I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate the Government on delivery. Under this Government, there are now 978,000 more jobs in the economy—210,000 of them under the new deal, which he is committed to scrapping.

Change the subject when one is losing—we all know that tactic. We would be delighted if the Prime Minister read out the comments of his focus groups because we could then ask for the whole document to be placed in the Library, and that would be very interesting.

this Government is arrogant. It's all glitz.

the Government's all presentation, it's missing the big picture.

Let us compare records on delivery. I have referred to the 1 million more jobs. We have halved long-term unemployment, 1 million people have been lifted out of poverty, there are 5,500 more nurses, and £6 billion has been spent on school buildings. What did the right hon. Gentleman do in office? The national debt doubled, crime doubled, child poverty trebled and pension poverty doubled.

very unimpressive team, particularly William Hague.

More.

Order. We shall proceed. I call Mr. Rammell.

Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister share my genuine horror at yesterday's UNICEF report, which showed that, in 1995, 20 per cent. of British children were living in families below the official poverty line? That report also highlighted the importance of policies such as the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the new deal, which the report's authors independently acknowledge will lift 1 million British children out of poverty by 2002. Would not the liberation of those children from poverty be put most at risk by a return of a Conservative Government, because it was Conservative policies that put them into poverty in the first place?

The UNICEF report said that the independent study confirms the Government's estimate that the measures currently being implemented will lift 1.2 million British children out of poverty by April 2002. That is through the increases in child benefit, the working families tax credit, the minimum wage, the new deal and the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. The Conservative party is committed to reversing every one of those policies. Everyone now knows that the Labour party exists to lift children out of poverty, and the Conservative party exists to put them in it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that among the many problems suffered by the children and the families of children who are victims of NHS vaccine damage, perhaps one of the most galling is that they do not receive one penny in payment if they are assessed as having under 80 per cent. physical or mental incapacity as a result of that damage? More than three years ago, he and his party, in opposition, promised a review. That review has been under way for three years. When will it report?

It has not been under way for three years, but it is true that we are reviewing the position and we will be able to make a statement on it shortly. We are aware of the huge concern on this, but we have had to deal with many other priorities, too. We have tried to deal with those priorities, but we are reviewing the situation in respect of vaccine damage. As I say, we hope to make an announcement shortly.

Surely it does not take three years of a Labour Government to recognise a basic injustice and to put it right. Is there any truth in the idea that the Chancellor and the Treasury have been blocking other Ministers' desire to come up with a full and fair settlement? Is it not about time—three years later—that a Labour Government should be delivering what Labour put its name to in opposition?

No, it is not true to say that, but we have done many other things—for example, in respect of the health service—that we did not even promise before an election. The accident and emergency departments of all the hospitals that want to be renovated will be refurbished by the end of this year, there are 5,500 extra nurses, and the health service has the largest settlement in its history. I hope that by the time we publish the NHS plan in July people see that we have a truly radical and progressive future for the health service guaranteed.

Why is it that, according to the House of Commons Library, my right hon. Friend's Government are spending £4.1 billion on providing for some of the poorest people in our community? Could it be because today's unemployment figures show a decrease of more than 500,000 in the number of people unemployed and an increase of almost 1 million new jobs in the economy and because this Government are creating pathways out of poverty for the people of this country?

In fact, as a result of the measures that the Government have taken and of the falls in unemployment and the rise in employment, which is also very important, there is a welfare saving of some £8 billion over the Parliament. Indeed, if we take out the increases for pensioners, child benefit and the working families tax credit, which are deliberate increases in the social security budget, it is falling in real terms whereas under the Conservatives it rose by an average of 4 per cent. in real terms every year. The reason it is important is not merely to make sure that we get more people into work, but because, with the money saved from the welfare costs, we can put additional resources into schools and hospitals, which the Conservatives could not.

Would it help to resolve the difficult dispute in the Government on the euro if the Prime Minister told his Ministers simply to tell the truth—namely, that since Britain decided not to join and despite the Government's damaging policies, the British economy has done particularly well and that despite our being told that the euro would go like a rocket, it has gone forward as a damp squib?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for two things: first, for saying that the British economy is doing particularly well and, secondly, for reminding us of the state of the Conservative party and what used to happen in the days when it was in office. I disagree with him about the euro; but, more important, one thing that has not emerged from our exchanges today is that the Conservative party is now committed to a referendum on any change whatever from the Nice treaty. That is part of the deal with Mr. Sykes. What is more, the Conservative party has now said that it would revisit any treaty signed by this country and subject it to a referendum. The effect of that would be to stop the whole enlargement process in Europe. We have only to have the hon. Gentleman up on his feet to know what life used to be like when we were at the margins of Europe and the Conservative party was split asunder.

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming yesterday's announcement that Capital One was doubling its work force in Nottingham, thus creating an extra 1,200 jobs in my constituency, in which unemployment is still double the national average?

I welcome the announcement of jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency. Of course, there is a lot of industrial restructuring at present, which means that jobs change a lot; but we very much welcome the new jobs that there are, and of course we welcome the great fall in unemployment. As for the shadow Chancellor's comments, they would be more credible were it not for the fact that he is committed to scrapping the new deal, which has helped more than 200,000 people into work.

As the Liberal Democrats fight such scurrilous personalised campaigns, what is the moral justification for the Prime Minister's love-in with them?

Tory gain.

I am sorry; I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Let us hear the question again. I did not hear it either. [Interruption.] Order. Let us all hear it.

I may have forgotten it.

If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with Liberal campaigns, he should take it up with the Liberal party, but I have always thought it sensible to work with people when there is agreement on certain issues.

My right hon. Friend will recall the Conservatives' prediction that 2 million jobs would be lost if we introduced the national minimum wage Despite what they said, we introduced it, and every Labour Member of Parliament is particularly proud of what we did. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what the level of unemployment was on 1 April last year, when we introduced the national minimum wage, and what it is today?

Unemployment has, of course, fallen, but, perhaps more important, employment has increased by more than 300,000 since the introduction of the national minimum wage. The Conservative party predictions on the minimum wage were wrong; the Conservative party predictions on the recession were wrong; and I think that some of the other Conservative party predictions being made at the moment about Tory gains are probably wrong too.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that 2,700 convicted drug dealers, 2,500 violent criminals and 1,800 convicted burglars have been given early special release from prison by his Government? Many of those people have since reoffended. Is not this revolving-door policy proof that the Prime Minister's pre-election claim to be tough on crime is nothing more than another example of his tendency to say one thing and do another?

First, the prison population has increased, not diminished, under this Government. Secondly, it is we who introduced tougher penalties for rape, violent crime and burglary. Those whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned are on licence in any event, and the proposal had until recently won support across the House.

Is it not rather offensive that the multimillionaire business man Paul Sykes should be wheeling and dealing with the Conservative party in order to lock in its extreme position on Europe? Furthermore, is there not a crass contradiction when someone who purports to lead a democracy movement wants to win influence on the strength of his pocket book rather than his arguments? Will the Prime Minister join me in saluting the hundreds and thousands of people across Britain, whatever their political persuasion, who make small donations to political parties and help to pay the cost of our politics without paying the price of undermining our democracy?

As I say, Mr. Sykes is entitled to spend his money in any way that he wants; but the price of his money has been the proposals on referendums made over the weekend by the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition. Those proposals would mean that a referendum would be held on literally any change whatever in Europe. That policy could not possibly withstand sensible scrutiny.

A motley crew of "Britain's outers" and "wholesale renegotiators" devote their extremist energies to the one more heave … that they believe will reverse what they see as the wrong-headed judgments of all recent Conservative Prime Ministers.

Now that, the Prime Minister's official spokesman has let it be known that he will be working part-time so that he can concentrate on developing policies for the Labour party, will his civil service salary of £96,000 be cut, pro rata?

First, people complain about too much spin, then they complain that my spokesman is snubbing the media. I have the figures for special advisers, as I thought that I might be asked about them by the Conservative party. It is correct that, since the election, an additional £2 million has been spent on advisers in Downing street. An additional £2 million has also been given to the Conservative party, so I think that we are about even.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that hon. Members have recently had the opportunity to visit the millennium wheel, but he may not be aware that that magnificent showcase of engineering and manufacturing was constructed in my constituency of Corby. Whereas the Conservative party continually carps about and runs down British workers and manufacturing, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the work force, engineers and designers in Corby who have built this world-famous showcase of British manufacturing?

I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on their magnificent effort, and British manufacturing on its success in that regard. What manufacturers remember is what happened in the early 1990s, when the very economic policies that the Conservative party espouses today were tried. We had 1 million manufacturing jobs go, interest rates at 10 per cent. for four years, a national debt double what it is now, and we had—

Boom and bust.

We had boom and bust.

The Prime Minister has had the proposals from. Lord Wakeham's commission on the House of Lords before him for some considerable time, but nothing has happened. Will he give an undertaking to the House and to the country that, well before the next general election, the Labour party will come clean about what it intends to do by way of long-term reform of the House of Lords? It seems rather strange that the Government can bring forward proposals on matters such as fox hunting, yet do not seem to have time to bring forward sensible, long-lasting proposals on reform of the upper House.

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. There is a debate on that matter on Monday, and the Labour party will of course make its position at the next election clear in its manifesto.

The Prime Minister may not have had the opportunity to read the Basildon Evening Echo, but will he take a look at it, as the Tory-led Essex county council is currently reviewing its meals on wheels service? It proposes that two weeks' worth of food should be delivered, frozen and in advance, to pensioners whom it has deemed are unable to cook meals for themselves or are a danger to others if they do so. Will he suggest to Essex county council that, even though it is Tory-led, it has a responsibility to put the needs of the vulnerable first? Will he also suggest that it might cut its budget for the chairman's champagne reception before it cuts pensioners' meals?

That is the real face of the Conservative party—no one should ever forget it. The Conservatives cut money and services going to the poorest people in our country. The Tory party has always stood for the few and not the many, and it always will.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Cornish schoolchildren receive £250 a head less under the existing formula than the average for England, despite the need to provide services across scattered rural communities? When will the funding formula for local authorities properly reflect the special needs of rural areas, especially areas such as Cornwall?

I was not aware of the particular statistic that the hon. Gentleman has just given me, but he will be aware that, as a result of the additional money that we have given to schools, the amount of funding per pupil in Cornwall—as elsewhere in the country—will have risen considerably under this Government, having been cut under the previous Government.