What assessment she has made of the impact of the Government's measures to tackle social exclusion. [128644]

I have held meetings with my ministerial colleagues over the past two months to ensure that the social exclusion unit's past reports are being implemented, and that progress towards the agreed targets is being made. The reports are on truancy and school exclusion, rough sleepers, teenage pregnancy and bridging the gap.

I consider the unit's work phenomenally important. As my right hon. Friend says, the reports are mostly about young people. When considering young people at the bottom end of society who have severe problems, will she ensure that the Government listen to what they themselves have to say about solutions to their problems? Will she also do all that she can to establish bodies such as youth forums, so we can listen to young people, learn from their experience and thereby make better policy?

I assure my hon. Friend that we do an awful lot of that already. The social exclusion unit's reports are compiled by a committee consisting not just of civil servants but of representatives of the voluntary sector, business and trade unions. Those people have a wide range of experience. There are also a number of forums enabling us to listen to old as well as young people. When we were compiling the recent report on "Bridging the Gap", one suggestion made by young people was the provision of a mentor with whom they could work. The report was a direct result of our having listened to young people—but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to do so.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that a significant factor in the tackling of social exclusion must be regeneration of our inner cities? It is more than a year since Lord Rogers's urban taskforce presented its recommendations, and it could reasonably be assumed that the Government would produce a White Paper within a few months of that. As the right hon. Lady is presumably the Minister responsible for joined-up government, can she tell us when the urban White Paper will see the light of day?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I do not have a date, but I know that the White Paper will be published soon. I expect it to appear within the next couple of months. I am afraid that I cannot be more specific.

What progress has been made in developing a cross-departmental policy for the countryside. [128645]

The Prime Minister set up a new Cabinet Committee in November 1999 to co-ordinate our policies affecting rural areas, and to help to achieve a fully cross-departmental policy for the countryside. The forthcoming rural White Paper will set out how we are developing a more integrated and effective approach to the countryside.

For people in the rural areas of my constituency, life under the last Administration was one long battle, whether they were defending small schools, defending post offices or defending the smaller hill farmers. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that we now have a Government who are providing support for small schools, an answer to the problems of rural post offices, and a proper countryside management structure. [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas the present Government take the countryside seriously, the last Government simply took it for granted? [Interruption.]

I thank my hon. Friend. Let me in turn congratulate the teachers, parents and children who are making the school in her constituency such a success.

Having heard all that, I wonder whether the Minister can now explain why there has been such a delay in the publication of the rural White Paper, which we expected to appear this month? Does she recall that, although the last Government produced a large number of warm words and a lot of pretty pictures in their rural White Paper, its publication coincided with a disastrous deterioration in the rural economy and in rural facilities, including the schools to which she has referred? Can she guarantee that her White Paper will not only represent joined-up government, but genuinely face the problems involved in regenerating the rural economy?

One of the reasons why the White Paper has taken time is that we have genuinely worked on it across Departments, and I hope that it will result in what the hon. Gentleman and I desire: a real difference in rural communities. We are looking not just at transport, education and health, but at jobs. We want to work with the private sector on regeneration. We have already put a lot of money into that to help it to work. With the European Union, we have put more than £3.5 billion into support for farmers. We put in another 1.6 billion to get rural development plans up and running. The White Paper is delayed not through lack of trying, but because we want to ensure that it has a real impact.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that rural post offices are the hub of the local community; and will she ensure that Government Departments work together to support rural post offices, giving them a vibrant economic future?

The work that has been done on protecting the future of rural post offices will be seen to do exactly what my hon. Friend wants. The performance and innovation unit report, which we are implementing and which the relevant Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry has agreed to, will make, I hope, a big difference.

Can the Minister confirm that the reason why the post office network is under threat is that the Department of Social Security proposes to remove a third of the income that post offices receive by cancelling the contract with the Post Office? Can she confirm that the Department of Trade and Industry has failed to put forward any measures that will replace those hundreds of millions of pounds; that the Post Office has revealed that the Horizon project will not produce extra revenues—it has written off the whole cost of that project on the ground that it will not cover even its own costs; and that the so-called universal bank will simply duplicate the Girobank, which already operates in the post offices, and will therefore not produce extra revenues?

At least we are not going to privatise the post offices. The benefits are not being taken away completely. Some are being taken away because that will lead to greater efficiency and a more effective service for the people whom we are all here trying to serve, but people who want to continue to collect their benefits from the post office can continue to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we want a prosperous countryside, there will need to be more opportunities for people, particularly young people, to work in the countryside, rather than their having to go to the towns? With that in mind, is it not important that we have more small enterprises in the countryside? Does she agree that we need to change some of the planning guidance—I am talking about PPG7 and PPG13—so that those small businesses can grow and hard-pressed farmers can diversify?

We are working to help farmers to diversify. Part of the job of the regional development agencies will be to do what they can. Some of the work is already taking place. For example, the £70 million extra that was given to organic farming will make a difference to farmers who want to make the change. PPG7 and PPG13 are being reviewed by another committee, which is looking at planning across the board—not just for people in rural areas, but for small and big businesses. As we try to decrease unnecessary regulation but protect people's health and safety, the aim is to make things simpler.

What progress has been made in recruiting counsellors for drug prevention and treatment specifically in rural areas. [128646]

In order to expand treatment capacity, the Government recently ran a major national advertising campaign to recruit drug workers and counsellors. The response was exceptional, with more than 20,000 expressions of interest received. Drug action teams are now working on matching applications to vacancies. The Government's 10-year strategy to tackle drugs is designed to combat drug misuse in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Drug dealers are increasingly targeting young people in rural areas. Not only do young people in those areas have less infrastructure to support them but, at the same time, drug action teams and police have fewer resources available in those same areas. Will the forthcoming rural White Paper contain a specific commitment to support drug action teams in rural areas?

I cannot tell the hon. Lady what the rural White Paper will contain, because I do not know. Although I am working on the White Paper, I do not know what it will finally contain. However, I reassure her that Macclesfield, which is the area covering her constituency of Congleton, will have some of the £70 million that we have just provided to central treatment agencies to increase treatment, where necessary, and to achieve even higher goals.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the pressure on schools is very great. It is clear that smaller children are now being deliberately targeted not only in rural areas, but in rural towns. Will she pay tribute to the work of the voluntary organisations that, in areas such as Cheshire, are doing tremendous work to help educate primary and pre-primary children on the effects of drugs?

I am most willing to congratulate the voluntary sector on the work that it does in educating particularly very young people on the dangers of drugs. I hope that we can do further work in partnership with the voluntary sector on what we call positive futures. We are working with the voluntary sector and particularly with various sports groups, whether football clubs or basketball groups. We are trying to get young people, through peer group pressure, to think of things other than drugs as they grow up. That is working in many towns and cities, and I look forward to the development of other projects.

Given the evidence that, in the prevalence of drug taking and the availability of drugs, there is very little difference between rural areas and urban areas, is there anything that the right hon. Lady can do to reduce the disparity in the provision of youth services between rural areas and urban areas? Youth services could provide very useful counselling and advice services on drugs.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer now, but if he would like to tell me the specific areas that he is referring to, I shall talk to the Department with responsibility for youth services and see what it can do.

Although rehabilitation units have been established in rural areas, they unfortunately really do lack funding. What help and financial support could be given to the groups that have already been established?

That is exactly what we are in the process of doing. We have just advertised for drug counsellors, and we are beginning training, so that staff are available to work in the centres. We are also putting £70 million extra into drug treatment. As we realise that it is no good starting the centres if we do not have the workers, we are working through the matter logically, ensuring that we have both workers and centres. We hope that we will soon see the results of that work. I accept my hon. Friend's point that there are waiting lists in some areas, but not in others.

If she will make a statement on the work of the better regulation taskforce. [128647]

The independent better regulation taskforce was established in 1997. Since then, it has reported 18 times. Some of those have been annual reports, and others have been intermediate reports. Later this year, the taskforce plans to report on alternatives to state regulation and on regulation as it affects vulnerable people. The future work programme has yet to be finalised—although, as part of the Government's action plan for farming, which was announced in March, the taskforce has started a review of environmental regulations, with particular reference to farmers.

When I was an active member of the Select Committee on Deregulation, I was very impressed by Lord Haskins's commitment to better regulation. In the light of his taskforce's recent stinging criticism of the increasing regulatory burden imposed by this Government, can the Minister tell us whether he even listened to the poor man—or are the Government all mouth and no delivery?

I agree that Lord Haskins is doing an extremely good job, but otherwise the hon. Lady completely misrepresents the position. If she looks back over reports in which recommendations were made, she will see that the Government have responded to them within the 60 days stated and have agreed to implement the vast majority of those recommendations. If she looks in detail at the report she has cited about the impact of regulation on the hotel and restaurant industry, where one in seven new jobs is created, she will find that Lord Haskins, while recommending changes in some areas of regulation, says that that sector experiences no competitive disadvantages compared with other countries. That contradicts the previous research done by McKinsey.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although we have a system to assess the effect of regulation and compliance costs on the private sector, we have no equivalent system for the public sector? However, much of what we do bears heavily on the public sector and carries substantial compliance costs. Could we have a system equivalent to that for the private sector which will assess the compliance costs for the public sector of legislation that we introduce?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, as ever, and he is 95 per cent. right. The 5 per cent., on which there has been some progress, is within the regulatory impact unit. A public sector team has been set up to consider the impact of regulations on the delivery of public services. Its first report was published in March and it concentrated on the bureaucracy and red tape surrounding the police. Its recommendations led to a reduction of 1.2 million in the number of police forms used across the United Kingdom.

It is good to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office in her place. We missed her during the debate last week. Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that the better regulation taskforce said in April that policy makers are ignoring the needs of small businesses when drafting regulations? Does he understand that it is not only the character of regulation but also the quantity that matters to small businesses?

There is no doubt that regulation impacts disproportionately on small businesses. That has been recognised by the Government and by Lord Haskins in his report, and the Government are considering his recommendations. Over the past three months, no deregulation orders have been passed and that is one of the reasons why we are considering a regulatory reform Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when Neil Hamilton and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) were considering regulation, they promised to burn piles of red tape, but in the three years after the passing of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 they passed only 30-odd deregulation orders. That implies that the process dealt with some regulations that could be improved, but not with the vast majority, which is why we need a regulatory reform Bill.

We got half an answer—that there were no deregulation orders in the three months in question—but we did not get the other half, which is that there were 59 items of legislation introducing additional costs on business—or one per working day—in that period. Does the Minister understand that 3,000 additional regulations under this Government, costing business £10 billion, are an enormous quantity? The better regulation taskforce has said that it is the "cumulative effect" of all regulations that should be the subject of Government strategy. There is no such strategy, so will the Minister endorse our proposal to cut the burden of regulations as a whole?

If the hon. Gentleman were to examine the previous Government's record, he would find that, year by year, the previous Government passed 3,000 statutory instruments, which is almost exactly the same number as the present Government have passed. In fact, it is almost invariant. The Government will not apologise for introducing the minimum wage and protection for workers and others who need environmental protection. We need to achieve a balance between the cost of regulations and protecting people.

What assessment she has made of the work of life education centres in relation to the drug prevention programmes in primary schools; what funding proposals she has in relation to expanding their work; and if she will make a statement. [128649]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is very familiar with the work of life education centres, and officials in his Department remain in close contact with the organisation. The approach to drug education that life education centres offer is one of a number that schools may choose to adopt, but the decision must be made at a local level, in order to address the specific needs and circumstances of the pupils.

In underfunded education authorities such as Leicestershire, much drug prevention work in the primary sector depends on generous contributions from Rotary clubs and from parents and schools. Is my hon. Friend convinced that £7.5 million for 7.5 million children of school age is adequate support for this crucial work and for organisations such as life education centres? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to boost the core funding of this work so that we can ensure that children make healthy choices and continue to wage an unremitting war against drugs in our country?

I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. That is why, at the last comprehensive spending review, the Government put more than £200 million extra into the fight against drugs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has listened to my hon. Friend's case, and my hon. Friend should listen to what my right hon. Friend has to say next week in his spending review statement.

Seven and a half million pounds is chicken feed compared with the £2 billion a year that the Government are spending on more government. In Lancashire we do rather well for life education centres, but they are supported by groups such as Rotary. I fear that other local authority areas may have no cover from organisations such as life education centres. What encouragement can the Minister give to other charitable groups to buy in life education centres for their areas, or to businesses to sponsor life education centres for primary schools?

Some areas are not covered by life education centres because it is a matter for the school and the local education authority. Quite simply, the £7.5 million that is going into educating children and getting them to make the critical decision not to accept drugs is £7.5 million more than the previous Government were willing to give.

Will my hon. Friend visit some of the life education centres and see their work? Had he been with me at Bowerham county primary school in Lancaster, he would have witnessed an excellent programme which fully involves very young children and complements the work of that first-class school.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has already visited a number of the centres. I am sure that she and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be delighted to visit a number of others to further the fight against drugs.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that voters at the next election will make a judgment based on facts in the real world, rather than on the froth that sometimes swirls around this place? In Exeter, those facts include record employment, more doctors and nurses, a refurbished accident and emergency department, a new renal unit, two new health walk-in centres, more teachers and classroom assistants, more school buildings, more bus services, and much more. How much of that will Exeter lose under £16 billion of Conservative spending cuts?

That is right, of course, because a very significant thing happened yesterday. Nine months ago, the Conservatives said:

Our guarantee on tax is clear. For the very first time, there will be no escape clauses, no fudging. No hiding behind the fine print.

prepared to stake our fate on meeting

May I begin by associating the Opposition with the Prime Minister's remarks about Archbishop Runcie? We will remember him for his integrity and moral leadership, and we entirely join in the Prime Minister's tribute to him.

Given the publication of the Conservative party's tax and spending policy, I thought that I might have been asked about that.

Do we not have an extraordinary situation in a Cabinet, where the Prime Minister cannot give a straight yes as to whether he agrees with his own Foreign Secretary? Are not the Government utterly divided and shambolic? The Prime Minister cannot agree with the Foreign Secretary on a central issue of policy. He wants the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to be Foreign Secretary—no one else does.

We have made it absolutely clear that, in principle, we are in favour of joining the euro and that, in practice, the economic tests have got to be met. The difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party is clear. The right hon. Gentleman has another guarantee—his sterling guarantee that he is going to keep the pound. Will he keep the pound for just one Parliament, or more?

The Foreign Secretary is now pursuing his own private policy on the euro—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order—I cannot hear.

The Foreign Secretary, who has mysteriously disappeared this afternoon, is pursuing his own private policy on the euro. The Prime Minister is too weak to get a grip on the Cabinet. He said last week—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like to hear the truth about the Government. He said last week that he would sack anyone briefing against Ministers, since when a friend of the Chancellor—that narrows down the lists of suspects dramatically—has said, "Tony and Gordon have both agreed to rubbish Cook."

Oh, so the right hon. Gentleman is going to keep the pound now. Tell me—is that a guarantee or just something that he intends doing? Have we got another guarantee there?

Today the Prime Minister has attempted the third relaunch of his Government in a single month under the inspiring slogan of "We're getting there"—a slogan last used by British Rail when it was not getting anywhere. Is not what is really behind that the desperation of Ministers to conceal next week's crime figures and their utter failure on crime? The Government obviously have the figures, so will the Prime Minister now come clean and tell the House the figures for the rise in crime?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is the one in need of a relaunch. Let me just tell him about the policy. What is important with rising crime is that we are now able to make the investment in extra numbers of police officers. Let us have a little discussion about this. It is correct that for the past six years—three years under the previous Government, three years under ours—police numbers have fallen. Now, as a result of the additional money, they will rise. We know, however, from the spending policy adopted yesterday, that the right hon. Gentleman is due to cut the numbers. Every person concerned about crime and every police officer in the country knows that if the right hon. Gentleman comes to power, he will cut police numbers further.

So the relaunch did not extend to giving a straight answer to a question. If the right hon. Gentleman will not tell the House the figures, I will, because although the Prime Minister will not give a straight answer, the police force does. Taking 33 out of 43 police forces, there were 183,000 more crimes committed in the past year than in the year before. Under this Government, is it not the burglars who have had a relaunch, the muggers who are fighting back, and the violent criminals who have a new deal? Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm the figures of the police that show that at least 183,000 more crimes were committed in the past year?

Of course it is true that in the past year there has been a 3 to 4 per cent. rise in crime, as we know. Over the period of this Government, there has been a fall in crime. What we also remember, however, is that when the right hon. Gentleman was in office crime doubled. The question is: what do we do? We now have proposals on youth justice; with three strikes and you are out for burglary—that is why burglary figures are falling; on drugs and crime through the new criminal justice measures; and there is investment in the police and in their equipment.

This morning, the right hon. Gentleman stood up in Downing street and said "We're getting there"; but millions of people throughout Britain know that this Government are getting nowhere. What does it say to people who are more likely to be victims of violent crime when the Prime Minister says "We're getting there."? What does it say to people waiting longer to see a hospital consultant when he says, "We're getting there."? What does it say to people whose teenage children are in larger classes? What does it say to people persecuted by the Chancellor every time they drive their car when he says, "We're getting there."? It says to those people that this Government are complacent and incompetent and that they have lost touch with the people they were elected to serve.

On the subject of incompetence, let us look at the right hon. Gentleman's national health service guarantee. Nine months ago, he said that every patient would have a guaranteed waiting time in the NHS under the Conservatives. It took two questions on BBC's "Question Time" for him to say, "Of course, we couldn't say that everyone was going to get a guaranteed waiting time." That is my definition of incompetence.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern of the people of Yorkshire at the plans of Kelda plc to offload Yorkshire Water on to its customers now that it has exploited the easy pickings of water privatisation? Does he agree that that cannot be allowed to proceed without fuller and further consultation with Yorkshire people, including a ballot of every Yorkshire Water customer?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposals raise important issues. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is meeting the regulator today to discuss those issues. The Government want to ensure that any reorganisation will direct long and lasting benefits to customers, and that companies comply with their public health and environmental obligations. I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns; a meeting with the regulator is taking place; and I hope that the matter can be resolved satisfactorily.

I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute that the Prime Minister so properly paid to the late Lord Runcie, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.

I entirely accept our responsibility to do the very best we can to change that situation. What is happening is that crime is not rising in every police area; in many it is still falling. It is correct that the number of burglary and car crimes are falling; the rise is in violent crime. We need to tackle that—both by extra investment, as I have already indicated, and by measures in the criminal justice system. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will support the measures such as those to ensure that, before those who are tested positive for drugs are given bail, they agree to take treatment for their drug condition. I think that such measures in the criminal justice system are an important part of turning the tide back.

Is it not the case that, rather than appointing a part-time Lord Birt to look at the issue, the public want more full-time police on the streets and in the community? Is not the sad fact of the matter that, having spent years in opposition quite rightly criticising the Tories for their lamentable record and for the decline in police numbers, the Government in office have presided over exactly the same story?

I have been open about the first three years of the Government and the position on police numbers, but I have also said that we now have the ability to make the investment. As a result of the measures that we have taken with more people in work, welfare bills falling and interest payments on the debt falling, we are able to get more investment into the police. What we have said all the way through—I say it again today—is that by the end of the year police numbers again should be rising. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that is one part of what we have to do, but we can do it only if we are prepared to make the commitment to invest.

Three years ago, the Government announced a £1.4 billion injection into the science budget and last week we heard that an additional £1 billion would go into that budget. That money is desperately needed and is welcomed by the vast majority of scientists and engineers working in this country. Under the previous Administration, that potential was ignored. [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that that funding will be put to good use and that it will enable us to realise our potential? Will he also take the time to reassure me that he will look with special interest on the north-west, because I remain deeply concerned that we need to realise our potential there? I hope that this funding will enable us to do so.

Yes. My hon. Friend should know that the Conservatives are shouting at her because they do not want to hear the facts about what they intend to do to the science and education budgets. I am afraid that the science and education budgets would also be cut under the Conservative party were it to come back to power. The £1 billion announcement on science is very important and the reason for the investment is that stability in the economy is important. More jobs are obviously important, but we also have to make that critical investment in the nation's prosperity. Unless we also make the investment in education, skills, technology, science and the transport infrastructure, we will not be able to guarantee—if I can use that word—prosperity and opportunity for people in the future.

Will the Prime Minister give careful consideration to the recommendation by Lord Norton that Prime Minister's Question Time should return to twice a week? Does the Prime Minister agree that, if that were to happen, it would provide greater accountability from him to this place and might give him the opportunity to reduce the spin, the rhetoric, the waffle and the general rambling that has characterised his performance to date?

I think that we heard rather more waffle today from the Leader of the Opposition than from me I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about Prime Minister's questions. In fact, if I can give him the figures, compared to the previous Prime Minister, I have spent more time answering questions in the House and more time giving statements.

lay off workers the morning after he—

brings in the minimum wage.—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 710.]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have seen the reports on the international AIDS conference in Durban this week. Although he might share my disquiet that President Mbeki appears to have given some support to people who would deny the scientific evidence on the links between HIV and AIDS, does my right hon. Friend agree that President Mbeki was absolutely right to point to the problems of drug pricing, poverty and the lack of access to basic education and health? Will my right hon. Friend use the next opportunities that he has, through the G7 or the European Union, to press for a substantial increase in support to the countries that are suffering the worst from this epidemic, so that the rich countries of the world start to make a contribution that begins to match up at last to the size of the problem?

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Of course we shall raise the issue of AIDS in the developing world and the problem of debt at the summit in Japan in the next couple of weeks. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to link in action on poverty in the developing world. In addition, we have put special investment into South Africa to tackle the serious HIV-AIDS problem, which is significantly reducing life expectancy in many countries in Africa when, throughout the rest of the world, people are looking forward to increased longevity. That is an important part of the strategy of the Department for International Development.

Since the election, the number of police officers in London has fallen by 800, and the number of officers in Sutton has fallen by 21 in the past couple of months. Retention is still a problem in the service, which is the view that Sir John Stevens expressed a couple of days ago, after the Home Secretary's welcome announcement on pay for the Metropolitan police. Can the Prime Minister give my constituents a guarantee that Sutton police will have the resources that they need to make Sutton not the second safest borough in London, but the safest? Can he guarantee my constituents that the number of police officers will not fall below the 25,600 which Sir John Stevens believes is necessary?

First, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that, as a result of housing costs and other issues that we are trying to address, there are particular problems in London with retention and recruitment. However, it is important that we start to bring in investment, which can help to increase police numbers. That should be happening in the Metropolitan police area and elsewhere by the end of the year.

John Reddington, a former child migrant, will shortly return to my constituency from Australia, not having seen his home for 50 years. That was a shameful policy practised by both countries in the post-war years. Will my right hon. Friend press the Federal Australian Government to make funding available, as this Government have, to ensure that more migrants can be reunited with their families? Does he agree that some kind of joint responsibility for that atrocity is essential?

I discussed that matter with the Australian Prime Minister when he was here. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that is important that we make sure that we try to at least alleviate the pain so far as we can for people who had an immensely traumatic experience when young.

What plans he has to visit the Tatton constituency.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

My constituents will be deeply disappointed that the Prime Minister is unable to experience the spirit of Tatton for himself. I know that they would be interested in his answer to a question that I know concerns them, having recently had an Adjournment debate on the issue, namely the verdict of gross negligence on the two pilots of the RAF Chinook that crashed in the Mull of Kintyre six years ago. Will the Prime Minister give that personal attention as a question of natural justice?

I am happy to give the issue my personal attention. I know that, with other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman has run a significant campaign for some time on this tragic incident and that he secured an Adjournment debate on it. The RAF investigation into the crash was painstaking and exhaustive. All possible causes were examined, but no evidence of technical malfunctioning was found. The RAF board of inquiry established that the Chinook was flying too fast and too low in bad weather.

Does the Prime Minister now regret putting just 75p on the pension this April.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, 75p is not all the money that has gone to pensioners. We had to decide whether to put everything on to the basic state pension, and we believed that it was better to give specific sums, such as the £150 winter allowance, the free television licences for the over-75s and free eye tests, which are very important; more and more pensioners are taking them up.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Eric Gates, the head teacher of Chantry school in Gravesend, who recently received a south-east teaching award for his work with parents and the local community? Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Mr. Gates took over the school three years ago, it was in special measures, the roof and the windows were leaking and the school could boast only 40 books in total?

Conservative Members definitely do not like it at all. I am afraid that a £17 billion spending cut has to be paid for, and if the Tories are re-elected it will be paid for by cuts in the schools budget. However, it is worse than that because the Conservatives' education policy also means taking £1 billion out of special educational needs. Not only do I think that that policy would be chaotic and wrong; I think that it is cruel, and no political party should have such a policy.

The post office at Winterbourne Stickland in my constituency has been in the same family since 1877. When I visited the post office last week and met four generations of the Sprackling family and about 60 villagers, they were still unconvinced that the Government's proposals on village post offices will see their post office survive 2003. They asked me what will happen to those who, for reasons of poor credit or bankruptcy, are unable to get bank accounts, and which bank will give them an account. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Winterbourne Stickland will have a post office in 2003?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me for guarantees. This lot have guarantees on the brain. We have set out our proposals on the post offices and measures such as the universal bank, and we are working closely with rural and other sub-postmasters and mistresses to try to make them work. In addition, we have been prepared to commit a sum for investment in post offices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman said to the family that he met yesterday, "Well, of course, if we Conservatives comes back to power, we will cut spending." That would have been an honest thing to say, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman did not say that. I am afraid that it is only just dawning on Conservative Members that they are going to have a lot of explaining to do between now and election day.

Somebody is confused and it is not me. To clear up the confusion, will the Government revisit mineral planning guidance note 3, in respect of opencast mining, to make it clear beyond any doubt that there will be no acceptance of applications when they are opposed on environmental grounds, community grounds and by the community itself? Unfortunately, that matter needs to be cleared up for Derbyshire county council, which has just decided to accept RJB Mining's planning application in my constituency. Obviously, action must be taken to ensure that the council knows exactly where it is supposed to stand.

Unfortunately, planning guidance note 3 was, by some extraordinary event, omitted from my box last night, but I shall ensure that that is remedied tonight and write to my hon. Friend.