If he will make a statement on progress on the reform of the health service in Wales following the most recent meeting of the joint ministerial committee on health. [126693]

The purpose of the joint ministerial committee on health was to provide an opportunity for all parts of the United Kingdom to share ideas and best practices.

Following the joint ministerial meetings, can my right hon. Friend say what has emerged as the most immediate, urgent reform required in the NHS in Wales? May I suggest that one fundamental reform would be a formula to ensure that the large amount of new money that we are putting into our health service is distributed to the areas of greatest deprivation in health terms? While I very much appreciate and warmly welcome the most recent announcements of additional support for the national health service in North Glamorgan, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that they represent only the beginning of the fundamental requirement to produce a 21st-century national health service in North Glamorgan.

Yes. I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. The joint ministerial committee dealt with the relationship between social services and the health service. In that respect, we can learn from Northern Ireland. We looked at the question of preventive medicine and, in respect of Scotland and Wales, what we can offer by way of telemedicine. There will be other important announcements in July. So far as the specific issue of deprivation is concerned, again I take my hon. Friend's point and remind the House that my hon. Friend, other right hon. and hon. Members and I met Jane Hutt this week to discuss the very points that he raised. Like my hon. Friend, I represent a valleys constituency and I understand the importance of tackling the deprivation which undoubtedly exists in Glamorgan and Gwent. I know that the Assembly has already put a great deal of resources into our valleys.

Has the joint committee considered the financing of health in Wales via the Barnett formula and the tendency of that formula to move towards convergence, so that if a service such as health requires more money in Wales because of socio-economic and industrial conditions, it may need money to come from outside what otherwise would have been the health block? Given the need for those additional resources, more resources for ysbyty Glan Clwyd and the £30 million required to deal with asbestos, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the July comprehensive spending review will include a consideration for maximising health money for Wales?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with the question of health spending when he explained to the House the considerable increases in the health budget for Wales resulting from the earlier spending review. It means that Wales will receive an extra £1.3 billion over the next few years. I hope that the money will go to the areas of greatest need. The joint ministerial committee has not discussed the Barnett formula. Of course the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Assembly Finance Secretary and others discuss these matters regularly.

In his discussions with other health Ministers, will my right hon. Friend discuss consultants' contracts? Does he recognise the concerns of my constituents who find that if they are on a waiting list they are sometimes advised that if they went privately, the procedure would be carried out much more quickly? Does he agree that what might have been necessary for Aneurin Bevan in 1948 is not suitable for the health service of the 21st century? We should not have restrictive practices which continue to allow consultants to have their mouths stuffed with gold.

I understand exactly what my hon. Friend says and I assure him that these matters are being discussed. I hope that a number of them will be addressed in the national plan for health which will be announced later this year. At about the same time, the National Assembly for Wales will be making its own deliberations and announcements regarding the matters to which my hon. Friend referred.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to transport in Wales. [126694]

My right hon. Friend meets the First Secretary on a weekly basis, and transport issues are discussed regularly. I also discuss transport issues in my regular bilateral meeting with the Assembly Environment, Transport and Planning Secretary.

Under the present Government, the people of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom have faced huge rises in the price of petrol—so much so that the price of a litre of petrol will soon reach £1. Do the Government realise the devastating effect that that is having on people who depend on the rural economy in Wales, with many people being forced off the roads by the Government's petrol pricing policy? Will the Minister please make representations to the Chancellor on that point?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to Welsh questions. I know of his Welsh antecedents, and of his keen interest in Welsh matters. He will be aware that the previous Conservative Government introduced the fuel duty escalator, and that it was this Government who ended it. It was announced in this year's Budget that, beyond the automatic increase in line with inflation, there would be no increase in fuel duties. It is important to remember that revenues from any increases that do take place in fuel duties will now go straight into a ring-fenced fund for improving public transport, and that Wales will get a share of that.

With regard to public transport and especially to rail services, some of us had the opportunity yesterday to meet Railtrack representatives. That followed our meeting last week with representatives from Prism Rail, and it is clear from our discussions about an all-Wales rail franchise that investment depends on the effectiveness of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority in lobbying on behalf of the rail system in Wales. The fact that the shadow SRA has only one representative from Wales blunts the competitive edge when it comes to negotiating for investment in the Welsh rail system. What does the Minister intend to do about that?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the matter has been discussed extensively. It is true that there is one Welsh representative among the 15 members of the shadow SRA, but that is on a par with the representation for Scotland. In terms of proportional population, it adequately represents Welsh interests. The Welsh Assembly was consulted on the appointment, and welcomed it.

No Labour Member standing on the subject of petrol prices, Madam Speaker? It seems that none of them really care. In rural areas of Wales the car is not a luxury, yet the Government use taxation on petrol as a tool of rationing. In 1997, petrol cost 61.7p a litre: today, it costs 84.2p, and even more in some parts of Wales.

I would only ask, "Who introduced the fuel duty escalator?" It certainly was not this Government. We have reviewed the fuel duty escalator and have given a commitment that, beyond the automatic increase in line with inflation, there will be no increase in fuel duties. Moreover, money for public transport will be provided by the Government. That is in stark contrast to what happened under the Conservative Government. We discuss matters with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on a regular basis, and I am pleased to say that there is more money for public transport in Wales as a result.

There is no consolation in that response for the hard-caned motorist in Wales. On top of the exorbitant petrol prices that they have to pay, motorists who use either of the two Severn bridges face the prospect of VAT being imposed, which would take the toll to about £5. That would hit tourism and the Welsh economy hard, so what representations is the Minister making to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to secure some protection against the wholesale fleecing of the motorist by the Government and the European Commission?

I think we have adequately covered the fact that the previous Conservative Government introduced the fuel duty escalator, so I shall move on from that. The hon. Gentleman should know that the proposal to impose VAT on charges at toll bridges is at present subject to proceedings in the European Court. No decision is expected until 12 September 2000. The Government are looking at the matter and will discuss it in due course, when a decision is pending.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the number of patients waiting over 18 months for an operation on the NHS. [126695]

Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First Secretary and the Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary to discuss a range of issues, including health issues and waiting lists.

I am surprised that the Minister did not refer to this morning's press release from the National Assembly for Wales, which reveals that the number of patients in Wales waiting more than 18 months for an operation has trebled to nearly 5,000 since this Government came to power. Is that not yet another example of how this Government tax more and deliver less?

If the hon. Gentleman had looked at the figures carefully, he would have seen that in Wales, more than 1,100 more patients are treated every week under Labour than was the case under the Conservative party when it had its chance to run the health service in Wales. When the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was Secretary of State for Wales, the annual increase in health expenditure in Wales was 1 per cent. a year. This year, under the Labour Government, there will be a 5.6 per cent. increase in health spending in Wales. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

Is the Minister aware that the south Wales valleys, including my area of Blaenau Gwent, have some of the worst health problems in the United Kingdom when it comes to heart disease, respiratory disease and cancers? Will he comment on the announcement by the Welsh Assembly that it will be another two years before it publishes its formula to tackle health deprivation? Does he accept that the first three years of the life of the Assembly will be totally irrelevant in dealing with the massive health problems in my community?

There is keen concern in the National Assembly and in the Government about the health disparities in valley communities. I know that the National Assembly has commissioned work to see how this can be tackled. It is undertaking a considerable amount of investigation for which there is financial support, and it is looking at primary health care. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met this week the National Assembly's Health and Social Services Secretary, Jane Hutt, to discuss this issue. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that some of the extra £1.3 billion that the Government are putting into the national health service will, in the next couple of years, find its way to meeting the needs of the important communities that he represents.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the implications for Welsh farming of the proposed Bill on hunting. [126696]

I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues including the proposed Bill on hunting and its implications for Wales.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of his key tasks, post-devolution, is to act as a conduit between the National Assembly for Wales and the Cabinet? In the light of yesterday's vote by the National Assembly in favour of having an option in the proposed Bill for Wales to decide on hunting at Assembly level, what representations will the right hon. Gentleman be making in Cabinet to include such a proviso in the Bill?

None.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be right for Members of this House, when we take a decision, to listen to the views of Assembly Members, as I have listened to the Assembly Member representing Cardiff, South and Penarth? Does he also agree, however, that we should be clear that this issue is a responsibility of this House, and that devolution means partnership between the two bodies, rather than the separation that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) obviously wants?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that the principle of whether we ban fox hunting with hounds should be a matter for this House of Commons alone. However, I accept that there may be implications in the detail of that legislation, with regard to pest control, for example, which may well be dealt with by the National Assembly. Those issues would have to be taken into account during the passage of the Bill in its parliamentary proceedings. However, I repeat that I agree with my right hon. Friend that the principle should be a matter for this House.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that hunting and farming are inextricably linked? What assessment has he made of any potential ban on hunting on the Welsh countryside, on Welsh farming and, in particular, on those employed by the hunts in Wales?

The hon. Lady knows that the Burns commission looked at this issue in some detail. It could not come to a firm conclusion one way or the other about the effects on the rural economy. The National Assembly and the Government are doing everything in their power to ensure that the rural economy is improved.

As the Minister knows, I support the proposals of the middle way group of MPs for the regulation of fox control, an activity regarded as essential by many mid-Wales farmers. I suspect that the Secretary of State and many of his colleagues have a different view, but will he agree that we must listen to opposing views to see whether there might be a more consensual approach to the issue than may have seemed the case in the past?

The hon. Gentleman knows that he and I disagree on the issue of fox hunting, but he also knows that one of the purposes of the Bill to be introduced is for hon. Members to have the opportunity to debate the different options available.

If he will discuss with the First Secretary policy on tourism in relation to national parks. [126697]

During his weekly meetings with the First Secretary, my right hon. Friend discusses a variety of areas, including tourism and the countryside. I also discuss these issues in my regular meetings with the Assembly Secretary with responsibility for planning, the environment and national parks.

The Minister will know how beautiful the Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia are; many visitors visit them every week of the year. However, he will also be aware of the plight of farming in Wales, where hill farmers' incomes have dropped by more than 40 per cent. in just three years. What steps is he taking to ensure co-existence between tourism and agriculture in our national parks?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman recently climbed Snowdon. I am sure that when he got to the top he could not see a Conservative seat for miles. Farming and tourism go hand in hand, and it is important that we have sustainability. The Government have put in additional resources following the recent agriculture summit that I attended on behalf of Wales. There will be a range of measures that the Government can take. It is important that we maintain stable tourism prospects. Tourism brings up to 100,000 jobs directly and indirectly into Wales and brings extra money into Wales. Farming and tourism go side by side and are both important to Wales.

Given that one of the remits of the national park authority, for example, in Snowdonia is sustainable development, may I suggest to the Minister that we should look for a more productive approach to tourism and that the authorities should have a remit to encourage sustainable tourism, together with a budget so to do? Much of the work is now done by voluntary groups such as Betws-y-Coed and District Tourism Association. They do very hard work and it is well worth while, but it is all voluntary. Should not the work be done on a more definite footing?

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the National Assembly recently launched a new tourism strategy for Wales entitled "Achieving our Potential". The three national parks played a full part in the consultation process. They were particularly keen to look at sustainable development, and I fully support the idea of bringing extra tourists to Wales in a way that sustains the beauty that attracts them in the first place.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the number of unemployed people in Wales in May 1997 and May 2000. [126698]

My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues, including employment in Wales. In addition, I hold quarterly liaison meetings with the Assembly Secretary for Education and Training.

I thank my right hon. Friend—I mean my hon. Friend, although he should be right hon.—for that answer. In my constituency, unemployment has fallen by 29 per cent. Youth unemployment has fallen by 69 per cent., despite the fact that I lost 800 workers when Kwik Save closed down. However, I am still concerned about the number of economically inactive people in Wales. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the First Secretary on reducing the number of economically inactive people in our work force?

I am pleased that unemployment has fallen by such a significant amount in my hon. Friend's constituency, thanks in no small part to the new deal and the efforts of the Government. The Government are working in conjunction with the Assembly on lifelong learning, social inclusion and active employment action—all things which I hope will help bring the economically inactive back into the workplace so that we can obtain the maximum benefit from objective 1 and ensure that unemployment falls still further.

The House will be somewhat disappointed that the Minister did not give credit to the bright economic legacy left in Wales by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). That was the reason for the fall in unemployment in the past three years. But what of the future? Objective 1 status will make a contribution to lowering unemployment, but when will we see the money behind that? This week, the European Commission gave its agreement to objective 1 status for Wales. Can the Minister tell the House whether he and the Secretary of State have convinced the Treasury to give full match funding in addition to existing plans for the Welsh block grant? A simple yes or no will suffice.

The bright legacy left to this Government was the legacy of no Tory MPs in Wales.

If he will make a statement on the prospects for the aerospace industry in Wales, with particular reference to Raytheon Systems and BAE Systems in Deeside. [126699]

I am in frequent contact with the First Secretary on a range of issues and we discuss many aspects of industry in Wales. This has included the BAE facility at Broughton. I have also visited both companies with my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He might agree that the Airbus factory is a jewel in the crown of Welsh manufacturing. I have to tell him, however, of the growing anger and perplexity at the grudging attitude in Cardiff with regard to the company's application for a £25 million grant. Does he agree that nowhere else in Europe would he find a national assembly that was not prepared to follow the national Government's vote of confidence by granting such moneys—certainly not in a German lander or a French département. Does he also agree that Lord Rogers's glass seagull perch cost in excess of the grant for which we are asking? We should very much like my right hon. Friend to intervene to ensure that the grant is paid, to show us that we are on the Cardiff agenda.

I know that my right hon. Friend battles hard for his constituents and for that important facility. He is right to point out, of course, that the UK Government gave £530 million in launch investment by way of loan to BAE. I shall ensure that his points are relayed to the First Secretary.

How will the moves by British Aerospace to link up with Boeing affect the Welsh aerospace industry?

Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry takes a keen interest in that matter. As the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, he will be aware of the importance of the industry and of that facility to all the people in the north-east and, indeed, to his own constituents. I know that he supports the UK Government in doing all that we can to ensure that the facility is enlarged.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the Deeside economy of Wales. [126701]

I have regular discussions with the First Secretary on matters relating to the economy of Wales and have visited Deeside on a number of occasions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Deeside economy is unitary? To that extent, my constituents who work at BAE also welcome the A3XX and hope that regional selective assistance will be awarded. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the environment too is unitary and that there is concern in my constituency about the Castle Cement kiln? Can he say what account has been taken of the views of my constituents in any decisions on planning permission for that kiln?

Yes I can. Obviously this is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. It has called in the planning application, and a planning inquiry into the application will take place on 11 October.

What recent representations he has received about hunting with dogs in Wales. [126702]

I have received no representations about hunting with dogs in Wales. Together with my Whitehall colleagues, I am taking a keen interest in developments on these issues and I of course am sensitive to the reactions of the Welsh rural community to this matter.

The Secretary of State spoke earlier about the details of the Burns report. What thought has he given to the conclusions of the Burns report as to how difficult it would be to control fox numbers in the upland areas of Wales in the absence of hunting with dogs as it is carried on in Wales? What message does he have for farmers who are worried about their stock, and who face a difficult enough time already?

Conservative Members know that there will be debate on that matter in the House of Commons in a week or so. The hon. Gentleman will be able to express his views then. On the question of pest control in Wales, the hon. Gentleman knows that, in Wales particularly, the farmers themselves flush out foxes with dogs, and he is also fully aware that other methods that are used in Wales could control pests, including foxes. It is not just hunting with hounds that can control foxes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also knows that the great bulk of Members of Parliament in Wales—and, for that matter, as far as we know, Members of the National Assembly—do not believe that hunting with foxes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Foxes?]—is a good idea.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 June.

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.

Does the Prime Minister have a view as to why crime is now rising for the first time in six years? Could it have anything to do with the fact that police numbers are going down?

Of course, crime doubled under the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was so proud. It is correct that in the last few years of the previous Government, and in the first few years of this Government, police numbers have been falling. However, as a result of the extra money that we are able to put in, which the hon. Gentleman's party would cut, by the end of the year police numbers will be rising again.

The recent announcement of two new medical schools, one in Norwich at the university of East Anglia, and the Peninsula medical school in Cornwall and Devon, should be hailed as a great success for our national health service. At the same time, the prospect of the human genome research in rolling out an understanding of the genetics of cancer means that we shall move things forward on that scientific front. Will my right hon. Friend play a major role in the development of our national cancer plan, and will he ensure that we consider, as the Select Committee on Science and Technology is doing, a national cancer institute, and perhaps 12 Royal Marsdens? Certainly, the postcode lottery for treatment with drugs and therapies must disappear.

The recent scientific discovery in relation to the human genome is immensely important not just for science but for this country, as we have played a leading part in developing it. I am delighted to say that the establishment of the new medical school at the university of East Anglia, which I know that my hon. Friend campaigned for and supported, will mean that we shall get the first brand-new medical schools in this country for 25 years. We are also increasing the number of medical school places by at least 1,000—the biggest increase in a generation—and, as a result of the additional spending in the national health service, we shall be able to make the investment not merely in bricks and mortar, and in nurses and doctors, but in medical schools as well. What the country should know is that all that spending would be cut by the Conservatives, because of their risky tax policy.

After three years of the mounting stealth taxes with which the Government have clobbered the hard-working people of this country, will the Prime Minister now tell the House what the price of a litre of petrol was when he took office, and what it has increased to today?

First, I think that people remember the 22 tax rises under the Conservative Government, including the doubling of VAT after they said that they would not do that. As for petrol, yes it is true that petrol prices have gone up, and it is true that, in the first two years of the present Government, they went up substantially as a result of increases in fuel duty. However, it is right to point out that of the rise in the last year—a rise of about 18p a litre—only 2p has been due to fuel duty. Sixteen pence—in other words, the vast bulk of it—has been due to the rise in oil prices, and that is affecting not just this country but countries right round the world.

Millions of people are paying the right hon. Gentleman's stealth taxes every day, and he is so out of touch that he does not know how much they are paying. The price of fuel has gone up 44 per cent. at the pump since he took office, and 34 per cent. of that is due to increases in taxation. It has gone up from 59p a litre to 85p a litre. When the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that he was indexing pensions and petrol by inflation, did the Prime Minister realise then what no pensioner could have known—that the inflation figure that he used for petrol was three times higher than the figure he used for pensions?

No. As I said in the House last week, the formula used for pension rises is exactly the same as the formula that has been used for the past 12 years. Yes, it is true that this year it has meant a small pension rise. Last year it meant a larger rise, as it will next year. The formula is the same as that used by the Conservative Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Since the Prime Minister took office, pensions have been indexed by 8 per cent. and petrol by 34 per cent., so trying to make out that somehow that has been of advantage to pensioners is an utterly laughable proposition. Will he now confirm that when the Chancellor said that pensions would go up by inflation, he meant 1.1 per cent., and when he said that petrol would do the same, he meant 3.4 per cent., because he changed the method of calculating the petrol increase from that used by the previous Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that when Ministers told the House on 6 April that they had not changed the methodology, they were not telling us the correct story?

That is wrong, for the reason that I have just given. Precisely the same formula is used for pensions as was used under the previous Government. As a result of the fuel duty escalator in the first two years of this Government, fuel duties went up, as was the case under the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. There is a choice, it is true. We decided that we had to erase the deficit that we inherited—£28 billion in borrowing and a doubled national debt. As a result, we have interest rates that average 6 per cent.—under the previous Government, they averaged 10 per cent.—and we can now make the extra investment in schools and hospitals. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would not have taken those measures on petrol, and would therefore have cut the money spent on schools and hospitals?

If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to give him a Budget, he can hand over as First Lord of the Treasury any day. I am asking him a question to which he has not given an adequate answer, as everyone who is watching knows. It turns out to be the case that the switch to a forecast figure for petrol duties was introduced by this Chancellor. It is no good the Prime Minister talking about the escalator, because petrol duties have gone up twice as much in the past three years as in the previous three years. When he abandoned the escalator, he got into a lift instead. For people who have saved up for their cars, people in rural areas who need a car, and people who are old or disabled and need a car to get about, is it not bad enough that he fleeces them at every opportunity, without using every opportunity to cover it up as well?

Of course, the fuel duty escalator was introduced by the previous Government. It is correct that we kept it. Petrol prices have gone up significantly, and of course that is difficult for people in rural areas and those who go long distances by car. However, it is worth pointing out that, although it is correct to say that it may cost more than £50 to fill up the average 1600 cc motor car in England, it is also correct to say that it costs more than £40 to do so in France and Germany, and that France has motorway tolls and vastly higher income taxes. I accept that we had to put petrol duty up, but there was a choice: either we could cut the deficit and make the investment in public services, or we could decide not to take those measures. I do not believe that we would have 1 million extra jobs in the economy or interest rates at 6 per cent. if we had not taken those measures. If the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that he would cut fuel duty, that means that he would also cut the money that we are putting into schools, hospitals and transport.

This Government cannot even tell the truth about the duty on a litre of petrol. They are so busy with trivia such as banning musical chairs, bailing out the dome, telling the royal family to move house and counting the number of fat people on television, that they have forgotten what really matters to people in this country. Is the time not coming when the people who cannot now afford to run a car will take their revenge on the people who cannot manage to run a Government?

Let us see who managed the economy best. The party now in government has created 1 million extra jobs, got interest rates of 6 per cent., managed to halve the deficit that we inherited—in fact, get rid of it—and taken a million children out of poverty. Was it our party or the right hon. Gentleman's party which, in government, doubled the national debt, had interest rates—[Interruption.]

Order. Stop it.

It is the comparison that Conservative Members do not like.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in welcoming the 18 per cent. drop in unemployment in my Great Yarmouth constituency. The statistic for the young unemployed is even more impressive, with a drop of more than 50 per cent. in the past three years. Despite that good news, however, Yarmouth's unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country. Indeed, it is three times the East Anglian average. Will the Prime Minister outline to my constituents what the Government intend to do to build on the good news that we have had over the past three years and ensure that sustainable jobs are created in areas such as Great Yarmouth?

Of course I am delighted that 1,000 people have started on the new deal programme in my hon. Friend's constituency, and nearly 500 of them have gained jobs. [Interruption.] For those Conservative Members who are shouting, I shall repeat that they would abolish the new deal. People who have got jobs under this Government know that they would have those jobs taken away by a Conservative Government. Moreover, my hon. Friend's constituents, whose mortgage rates have come down from the appalling levels of the early 1990s under the Conservatives, know that under the Conservative boom and bust policy, they would go back up again.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that health action zone funding will be maintained in 2000–01 at the levels originally set and announced by the Government?

The health plans will be set out by myself; I am covering the July plan in a few weeks' time. We shall set out the details of our spending proposals. Health action zones are immensely important and do a very good job in many local areas, and obviously we want to continue them.

I think that the whole House would want to continue them—[Interruption.] I was just trying to be inclusive. If the position is as optimistic as the Prime Minister says, why, in a letter that came into the public domain today, did the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) state:

I appreciate the programme funding—

is less than previously indicated?

We … will, in effect, be announcing cuts to anticipated Health Action Zone Budgets this year.

This will not be received as good news and we do not recommend a press notice.

That is absurd. The Government have announced new money for the national health service, and it is already going into the service. When we came to office, health authorities had huge deficits, which, as a result of the new money, are largely being cleared. There are already 7,500 new nurses, and there are thousands more to come. There are also extra doctors, accident and emergency departments are being renovated, and extra spending has been announced not only for this year but for future years.

When he next plans to visit North-West Leicestershire.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

As one of a north-west Leicestershire family who ran the post office in my home village for most of the 20th century, may I ask my right hon. Friend how likely it is that the extra income from community banking, electronic commerce and online government will compensate local offices for the losses that will result from automated credit transfer? When he does visit us, will he reassure rural and urban communities that the local post office network really is safe in his hands?

The proposals to be announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry later today will do that, and I think that they will be widely welcomed. It is important that we set out a plan for post offices that will allow them to modernise and develop, which is essential, and ensure that in every way possible, we protect rural post offices for the local communities that they serve.

May I tell my right hon. Friend that in October 1999, the waiting time for a cataract operation at Milton Keynes general hospital in my constituency was 12 months, whereas now, thanks to additional Government funding for an extra ophthalmic surgeon, the waiting time has been reduced to between four and six months? That is much better, although there is still room for improvement. Does that not demonstrate that the best way to reduce waiting lists in the NHS is to use public money directly to recruit extra doctors and nurses, and not, as the Conservative party proposes, to waste £1 billion on tax relief for private health insurance, half of which would be for those who can already well afford to pay for private insurance?

I am delighted that the waiting times for cataract operations are coming down in my hon. Friend's area, although as she rightly said, there is still a considerable way to go. Of course, the Conservatives want to drive everyone needing non-urgent treatment, such as a cataract operation, out of the NHS altogether. We still have not had an answer from them as to how their £1 billion plan for private medical insurance would be funded, if it is not to be funded from cuts in the NHS.

When the Prime Minister next enjoys a weekend in the Buckinghamshire countryside, will he commit himself to preserving that countryside for my other constituents by overturning the unwanted and excessive housing targets that his deputy now wants to impose?

First, let me point out that the targets put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister are lower than those for many of the years of the previous Conservative Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a proud supporter. [Interruption.] That is entirely true. Secondly, we did not accept the original plans, and we have increased the amount of building that must take place on brownfield, rather than greenfield, sites.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent opening by Vauxhall Luton of a £5 million research and development engineering technology centre, and the investment of £189 million in United Kingdom plant? Will he join me in congratulating all the workers of Vauxhall Luton on the work that they have put in to secure that investment? Does he not agree that that is a significant boost to UK manufacturing industry, which stands in sharp contrast to the actions of the Conservatives, under whose regime 26 million manufacturing jobs were lost—[Interruption.] Manufacturing output dropped by 28 per cent., and they constantly talked down UK manufacturing industry?

I think that it was actually 2.6 million jobs that went under the previous Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to be rather proud of that record. There is good news not just from Vauxhall but from Leyland Trucks, too. Manufacturing has been through a difficult period indeed, but the single most important thing for the whole of our industry is to maintain stability in inflation and in the interest rates in the economy. All the manufacturers whom I speak to—even those who are worried about the high level of sterling recently and about manufacturing—accept that the last thing they need is a return to the policies of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a year, and a million or more manufacturing jobs went in a couple of years.

Will the Prime Minister confirm the story in The Guardian today that his press secretary, the fabled Alastair Campbell, has instructed every Department to produce at least two good news stories every week for two months during the summer recess, to cheer up the Labour party's image? Is it not time that that gentleman was taken off the public payroll and put back in on the payroll at Millbank, where he belongs?

I agree with the hon. Lady; it was an entirely redundant message since there is lots of good news that we can tell people about—for example, the record literacy and numeracy results in primary schools, the additional spending in 11,000 schools up and down the country, the 250,000 jobs got through the new deal, the extra money for pensioners, the extra money for children and child benefit, the extra money for schools and the extra money coming for the police after the comprehensive spending review. I agree that he need not have sent that out; we can do it ourselves.

Will my right hon. Friend welcome, as I will, the close of business in the House today, by which time, if all goes well, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill will have completed its passage? Will he join me in ensuring, to the extent that he can, that those in the other place do not interfere too much with the Bill, so that the Government can fulfil yet another pre-election promise?

Certainly, to the extent that I can, I will.

Does the Prime Minister accept that No. 10 Downing street is an historic building of considerable public interest? Does he not think that, as he is the head of a so-called modern Government, it is about time he got out? Is it Government policy to ask the present occupant of Clarence house to vacate it—and when will all this end?

I think that we should all stay put.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to encourage local authorities such as Tory-controlled Gedling borough council to use the new powers that the Government have given them to tackle anti-social behaviour in their communities? People are fed up with the yobs. They are fed up with bad neighbours. They want something done about it. We have given local authorities the powers. Is it not about time that they used them?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A breach of such an order is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Although the use of those orders is now on the increase, far more could be done. There is nothing worse than if a family has to live in an inner-city estate or in a town next to families that perhaps are engaged in criminal activity, drug dealing and all the rest of it. They make their lives absolute hell, and those anti-social behaviour orders are there to be used. I urge all local authorities to use them, particularly the Conservative ones that are slow to do so. They are there for the protection of the public, and the more we use them, the better.

Will the Prime Minister have a word with the Department of Health about its disingenuous policy of, on the one hand, stating that it opposes euthanasia, while, on the other hand, it allows passive euthanasia by the withdrawal of medical treatment, including food and fluids, from those who are not dying, thereby making even more vulnerable the frail, the elderly and the disabled?

I do not believe that that is the policy of the Department of Health at all.

Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and Sir William McAlpine performed the topping-out ceremony at EXCEL, London's new international conference and exhibition centre in docklands in my constituency, barely a year after the Deputy Prime Minister performed a ceremony at the beginning of building. EXCEL opening in November will be a key element in the regeneration structures for east London. However, one of the more eagerly awaited pieces of transport infrastructure is the channel tunnel rail link coming into Stratford. Can the Prime Minister reiterate the Government's commitment to the building of phase two of CTRL, which is important not just to London and the Thames gateway area, but to the whole of the UK, to provide fast rail access to Europe?

I can certainly confirm the commitments that we have made. Of course, that is an infrastructure project that will bring not just better infrastructure but jobs to the area. I know that my hon. Friend has been working hard with other hon. Members in regenerating that particular part of London. As a result, literally thousands more jobs are being created. That is good for local business and local people.

Will the Prime Minister confirm Lord Wakeham's assertion, as reported in The Independent today, that he came under considerable Government pressure to fudge his report on the House of Lords?

No, I will not confirm that at all. I thought that it was a good report, but it was Lord Wakeham's report.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Health and Safety Commission recently announced its future health and safety strategy, including 10-year targets. Those targets are to reduce ill health in the work place, to reduce fatalities and to reduce the number of major injuries. Does he agree that those targets need teeth, that the Government should look towards legislation that will support sanctions against people who breach health and safety legislation, and that named directors of companies should be responsible for health and safety policy?

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a serious issue, which is why, a short time ago, the Deputy Prime Minister set out a new strategy that sets targets for improvement over a period of 10 years. The cost to the economy of health and safety failures is some £18 billion a year. Fatal accidents cost 400 people a year their lives, and 25,000 have to give up work due to accidents, never to return, so I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is a very important issue. We will work with employers, trade unions and others to improve the situation.

Bearing in mind the fact that 11 men have lost their lives in the fishing industry in my constituency in the past three and a half years, leaving 23 children without fathers, does the Prime Minister understand just how disappointed the industry was when the Minister of Agriculture cut fishing safety grants in May last year? People were encouraged when the Deputy Prime Minister promised to reinstate them a year ago, but there has been no action since then. Will the Prime Minister intervene to ensure that fishing safety grants are improved, so as to improve fishing safety throughout the UK?

First, I express my sympathy to the families of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who lost their lives. Secondly, on the forward-spending plans of the Government, I am afraid that he will have to wait for the comprehensive spending review.