If he will make a statement on developments in the peace process. [129859]

If he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [129864]

If he will make a statement on the current state of the peace process. [129866]

Considerable progress has been made in recent weeks. Devolution has been restored, the IRA confidence-building measure is in place, and good progress is being made to implement the Good Friday agreement in full.

If today's security alert in central London turns out to have been caused by breakaway IRA groups, should not they learn that we did not give in during 25 years of sustained terror and that we are hardly likely to do so now? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that dissident IRA elements and the loyalist factions that have caused so much trouble with hooliganism and violence recently have something in common? They loathe each other and want to commit murder, but is not what they have in common a desire to destroy the Good Friday agreement?

I strongly echo my hon. Friend's sentiments, and I deeply regret the inconvenience to rail and underground travellers today. The main paramilitary groups are maintaining their ceasefires. However, a threat remains from dissident paramilitaries opposed to the Good Friday agreement. I utterly condemn that threat, and the disruption caused by the incidents today.

In the context of the process of peace and reconciliation, will my right hon. Friend comment on the death of Robert Hamill in Portadown? Is he prepared to authorise or instruct a judicial inquiry, under section 44 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, into the circumstances surrounding his murder?

I do not rule out such an inquiry, or one of a similar kind. However, while investigations into that tragic and brutal killing are continuing, I shall maintain the option without giving any further commitment to undertaking such an inquiry.

The Secretary of State is a master of the oleaginous reply. Will he break the habit of a lifetime and answer this question directly: what is the estimate of the percentage of IRA weapons that have been inspected by Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa? Will he give an indication when decommissioning, the key feature of the Belfast agreement, will be complete?

A substantial quantity of armaments in a number of dumps was inspected by the two international inspectors. That included weapons, explosives and detonators. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the fulfilment of that commitment by the Provisional IRA—assuming that further inspections by the two international inspectors can take place in due course.

The Secretary of State will know that today's incidents in London are being attributed to dissident republicans. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that dissident republicans were responsible for the Omagh atrocity, and that the House was recalled to enact emergency legislation that we were told would be used against those elements? In the two years since, that legislation has not been used at all. Will it be used? Will the Secretary of State press the Irish Government to use the equivalent legislation on their side of the border?

The legislation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers remains on the statute book. Where the police and the prosecuting authorities believe that it is possible and desirable to invoke it, they will do so without hesitation.

Following the point raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I can tell my right hon. Friend that normal life came to a halt in my part of west London this morning because of what we are now told was a "viable" explosive device in Ealing. A coded warning was given from what we assume to be a dissident republican group. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying public tribute to the emergency services, and to the operators of the overground trains and of the London underground, who kept disruption and misery to a minimum?

I am sure that the whole House will want to join my hon. Friend in expressing gratitude to the emergency services, who reacted so promptly and efficiently today in response to the coded warnings that were received, and in coping with the disruption that ensued. The device that has been exploded at Ealing was an improvised explosive device. Further details are awaited, but the code word used in connection with the incident was the same as that used for the attack on the railway line at Newry and in other incidents and hoaxes on the mainland. The device at Ealing may have been of a size similar to that of the Hammersmith bomb. It certainly appears that this attack was carried out by dissidents, but we shall pursue the matter and pin down exactly who was responsible.

I want to return to matters in the Province. Will the Secretary of State say what we must do to prevent a recurrence, in the run-up to 12 July 2001, of the recent civil unrest, which involved illegal roadblocks?

It is slightly pessimistic to assume already that there will be continued deadlock at Drumcree next year. The determination by the Parades Commission has set out a clear, thoughtful and considered route map to enable all sides in the dispute to reach a local agreement. That will ensure that what took place in the past couple of weeks will not happen again next year.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that, as we in Northern Ireland move painfully and slowly towards peace and normality, there has been an enormous increase in drugs trafficking, which has penetrated our communities and led to beatings, petrol bombings and shootings. Will he urgently examine that new cancer in our society, which is often promoted by erstwhile or so-called erstwhile paramilitaries, review the resources that he and the police have at their disposal, enhance those resources, and start an all-out war on those parasites on our society, who are destroying our young people?

It is true that the spread of drugs, their supply, their use and their sale, behind which stand many members of paramilitary organisations, is now at the heart of the programme of activities undertaken by the RUC. Wherever I go in Northern Ireland, the story is the same: the cancer is spreading into every community. I assure the House that the RUC will utilise every resource it has at its disposal to combat that illegal and unacceptable activity, and that the RUC will have the Government's full support in doing so.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that on or before 28 July, he will release all the remaining terrorist prisoners who committed crimes before the signing of the Belfast agreement? Will he confirm that one of the most notorious terrorists, Michael Stone, will be released this Friday? Will he also confirm that there has, as yet, been no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives—not one gun, nor one ounce of Semtex?

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the forthcoming prisoner releases, but I should emphasise that they depend on the maintenance by the organisations to which the prisoners belong of the ceasefires to which they are committed. Evidence of the involvement or engagement of any paramilitary group now on ceasefire in violent or terrorist activity would, of course, have a direct impact on my assessment of their ceasefire and potentially on further prisoner releases. I should point out that all the prisoners due to be released will be released on licence, which provides a mechanism to return them to prison, if necessary—an important point that both the House and the prisoners should bear in mind.

The Secretary of State will recall that the Prime Minister, rightly, referred to a parallel process when he was persuading the people of Northern Ireland to vote yes in the referendum. However, the process is not parallel when terrorist prisoners are given early release but no decommissioning takes place. At this late hour, I plead with the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the great majority of people in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, not to release the remaining terrorist prisoners until, at the very least, all the paramilitary groups that signed up to the Belfast agreement have opened their arms dumps to international inspection and decommissioning starts to proceed.

I shall not introduce that fresh condition at this stage, as I do not think that it would be a constructive step in the peace process. However, I remind the right hon. -Gentleman that the Provisional IRA has undertaken its confidence-building measure, which is the first step in a process that the IRA itself says will end in the complete and verifiable putting beyond use of its weapons; in addition, contact has been resumed between the IRA and the decommissioning body. Those are welcome and important confidence-building moves. I should like to see other measures undertaken on the same basis by loyalist paramilitary organisations, and I take this opportunity to urge them to do so.

My right hon. Friend will recall that among the confidence-building measures was the Patten report and the new Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. In his speech at Coleraine yesterday, he said that he had introduced 66 changes into the Bill at the behest of the nationalists. At best, those changes only partially restore the Patten provisions, and in only one or two instances do they fulfil the provisions of Patten. Will he give an undertaking that, when the Lords consider the Bill, Patten will be restored to the Bill in full, and that there will be no more withdrawing or alteration of Government amendments at the behest of the Unionists?

I strongly contend that the original Bill reflected entirely and faithfully the Patten commission recommendations. In addition, the improvements and changes that have since been made to the Bill have strengthened it. I did not make a speech in Coleraine yesterday— [Interruption.] I did not leak a memo either; however, I did make the point that we need to make a distinction between those parts of the Bill that can and have been, quite legitimately, improved and those claims made by a minority who deliberately misrepresent the Bill's contents. I shall continue to refute those false claims about the Bill, just as I shall continue to consider constructively amendments proposed to improve the Bill's contents.

How many weapons believed to be held by terrorist organisations have been recovered by the RUC and the Army in Northern Ireland this year. [129860]

During the period 1 January to 30 June this year, the RUC and the Army recovered 64 firearms, 6,085 rounds of ammunition, 247.1 kg of explosives, 34 detonators and four launchers. It is not possible to attribute those finds to individual terrorist groupings.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we on these Benches— [Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear Mr. Ross and I have the impression that the Secretary of State cannot either, because conversations in the Chamber are very noisy.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that we on these Benches agree entirely with the remarks by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay)? Does he also appreciate that not a single round of ammunition or weapon that he has just detailed was given up voluntarily, but that they all had to be recovered from the terrorists, who were unwilling to give them up? Has the Secretary of State yet been able to determine whether the recent murders of Mr. Cairns and Mr. McCoy and the bomb set off in Stewartstown were carried out by dissident or mainstream terrorist organisations? If mainstream, would that not constitute a breaking of the ceasefire, or does that apply only to murders of members of the security forces?

If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman is right. Let me take the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that if I receive any assessment based on evidence collected by the RUC that any individual has been involved in perpetrating such offences, I shall expect swift action to be taken against that individual. If that has implications, through that individual's membership of a paramilitary organisation, for the maintenance of that organisation's ceasefire, I shall take them into account when considering further prisoner releases.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of yesterday's hugely successful reception held in the Palace by the RUC, which was attended by Sir Ronnie Flanagan himself. In the light of the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, will he ensure that Catholic recruits are taken into the RUC and that we have representation at all senior levels in future? Will he state what discussions he is holding and what measures he is implementing to ensure that that becomes a reality?

The whole House will join my hon. Friend in applauding the performance of the RUC in the past couple of weeks. More generally, I believe that the police response to events surrounding Drumcree was measured and proportionate, but no less firm for all that, and that they acted entirely professionally. If we were not serious about creating a fresh start for policing, we would not be introducing a 50:50 selection procedure to achieve an intake to the new police service that is balanced between Protestants and Catholics. We shall operate that system not only for three years or 10 years, but for however long it takes to achieve the properly representative police service that Northern Ireland needs if its police service is to be even more effective in future.

With reference to the important issue raised by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on the extension of mafia-like activities in drugs, extortion and other criminal acts, the Secretary of State has confirmed the widespread involvement of paramilitaries on both sides. Can he confirm that the paramilitaries involved are largely the good terrorists who support the peace process, not the wicked, dissident terrorists who are allegedly disrupting London?

Unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not distinguish between good terrorists and bad terrorists. To me, all terrorists are bad and equally unacceptable. If there is any evidence that will bring them, individually or collectively, to book, it will be acted on decisively.

In that spirit, while it is true that the IRA has opened some arms dumps to the international inspectors, is it not regrettable that other paramilitaries have made no such progress? What pressure is the Secretary of State exerting on that point?

It is highly regrettable that the loyalist paramilitaries, who, in a sense, got off to a good start—better than that of the Provisional IRA—have now fallen behind on the efforts required to bring about a complete decommissioning of all weapons held by all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Their own side of the community—the people for whom they purport to speak and represent—stand to gain just as much as anyone else from a peaceful, demilitarised society in which violence and terrorism have been put behind then once and for all. I hope that those organisations will begin to make their contribution to the complete decommissioning that the people of Northern Ireland expect and demand.

If he will make a statement on the current levels of recorded crime in Northern Ireland. [129862]

I apologise for the absence of my junior Minister, who is caught on a train somewhere in south London.

While those figures are in some ways worrying, they are also relatively good in comparison with those for some other parts of the United Kingdom. That is a great credit to the RUC, and the Secretary of State was right to praise the force a few moments ago. Does he agree, however, that a worrying fact is concealed behind the statistics in that a great many punishment beatings and mutilations are not recorded crimes because their victims are too afraid to report them?

The hon. Lady makes a good point. While comparisons are not straightforward, it is clear that the overall crime rate in Northern Ireland is lower than that in other parts of the UK with comparable population sizes. Paramilitary attacks are entirely the opposite of what the Good Friday agreement was all about. I call on all those who have information to co-operate with the police in order to stop those attacks in future. I call on those with influence over paramilitary groups to call a complete and immediate cessation to those barbaric acts.

As a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I visited Drumcree and spoke with the police who held the line. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police on keeping the situation within acceptable boundaries this year and on their record in combating disorder and crime in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that once the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill has been enacted, the time will have come to stop looking backwards and quibbling over every detail so that we can work together to ensure that the police have a chance to beat terrorism and crime in Northern Ireland?

The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. Everyone should look to the future and towards creating the fresh start in policing for which a consensus exists. The events in Drumcree showed that bullies do not get their way in Northern Ireland and that physical force confrontation—by loyalism or republicanism—does not succeed any more in mobilising the mass of people in Northern Ireland. That is a tribute to the peace process and to the strength and durability of the Good Friday agreement.

I join those who have congratulated the RUC on its work. Is the Secretary of State aware that the force is under tremendous pressure, not only in dealing with terrorist activity but because of the shortage of funds that leaves many stations not properly manned? Is failure to report republican parades a recorded crime? That is happening, and people are concerned that the law is not being applied impartially.

The RUC is fairly and even-handedly applying the law to all groups in both traditions in Northern Ireland. It has the resources and manning to do so, and, under the present Government, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will continue to have all the resources, skills and training that it needs to do its job effectively in Northern Ireland in whatever circumstance and in the face of whatever challenge to law and order from whatever source it comes.

Order. Time is up, and I appeal to the House to settle down. There is a lot of noise and loud conversation. Ministers are finding it difficult to make themselves heard.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 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.

Is it not now completely true that the Labour Government are out of touch with gut British instincts? They were elected on a promise to make sure that pensioners

share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats' commitment was to raise pensions in line with prices, not earnings. Secondly, they asked us to help the poorest pensioners first, and the minimum income guarantee has raised the pension for the poorest—

indicated assent.

The hon. Gentleman says that that is right, but he has just been telling me it was all wrong. We have raised the pension for the poorest people by between £15 and £20 a week, and £6.5 billion has been spent in total. The extra money that we are putting into schools and hospitals is vastly in excess of anything that the Liberal Democrats ever asked for.

Last Friday's announcement that Corus would make 600 steelworkers redundant at its Scunthorpe works will bring the number of workers there below 4,000. In 1979, there were more than 20,000 steelworkers there. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that his Government will give every aid and assistance to the local taskforce that has been formed to ensure that there are new jobs and opportunities for the area? Is he aware that last night my local newspaper, the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph—[Interruption.] Wait for it. Last night, the paper stated that the biggest hypocrite on job losses was the Leader of the Opposition, for trying to make political capital out of job losses in an industry largely destroyed by the Tories.

We will of course work closely with my hon. Friend's constituents to do all we can to protect them following that announcement. We will work hard to see that there are additional jobs, but people should know not only that the Conservative party decimated the industry but that it is now pledged to public spending cuts of £16 billion, which would devastate my hon. Friend's constituency and those of hon. Members throughout the House.

Two years ago, the Government announced spending of £21 billion, which they said would transform the national health service. Since then, the waiting list for the waiting list has grown by 150,000 and we have learned that there were fewer heart bypass operations last year than for 25 years. Is it not a disgrace that the Prime Minister is commissioning memos ludicrously entitled "Getting the Right Place In History"—even Napoleon did not commission a memo on that subject—when many people are struggling to get the right place in hospital, thanks to the incompetence of his Administration? Was not the adviser who wrote

TB has not delivered. He said he would improve the NHS…but instead things have got worse

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might want to talk about the memo rather than yesterday's spending review. Let me tell him what the first comprehensive spending review delivered for the health service—38 new hospital developments are under way, more than 6,000 more qualified nurses, 5,000 more doctors and every accident and emergency department modernised. Now let him tell us what £16 billion of spending cuts would deliver.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that he has talked about tens of billions of pounds for years, but things have got worse? As the same adviser told him:

We have not proved strong enough…to get enough done.

Order. There are a lot of noisy people.

We shall set out our own plans on public spending—to spend what the nation can afford. They will include the reform of the welfare state, from which the Prime Minister ran away so pitifully. If he thinks that he is going to spend £16 billion more than a Conservative Government would, he had better work out which £16 billion of additional tax rises he will levy on the people of this country.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would publish his plan for spending cuts, but I can tell him that the Conservative research department has already published it this morning. The document says that the revenue gap will be £16 billion, and helpfully sets out where the cuts will fall, region by region. For the north-west, there will be cuts of £1.7 billion; for Yorkshire and Humberside, £1.2 billion; for the midlands, £2 billion; for London, £1.8 billion. We know where the right hon. Gentleman's spending cuts will fall, and every Conservative Member of Parliament will have to answer for that.

the Red Book which is the document that accompanies the Budget…shows that the Government expects the tax burden to fall during the next parliament, which is exactly what we expect.

The Prime Minister is the man who said that he had no plans to increase tax at all. Since he said that, people have paid more tax on their petrol, pensions, marriages and mortgages. When the Prime Minister came into office, the poorest fifth of households paid 37 per cent. of their income in tax. Will he give the latest figure from the Office for National Statistics for the poorest fifth of households?

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman about the tax burden, as it is set out very clearly. The tax burden is actually falling this year, and is due to fall next year. However, it is correct to say that for the first two years, we took the measures necessary to get rid of the deficit. As a result, we have the lowest inflation in Europe, and interest rates at 6 per cent, not 10 per cent. as they were under the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Frost: Would you reduce the tax on petrol definitely, would you give a guarantee on that?

Portillo: Well…I…I'm not getting into the business of guarantees.

More, more.

There is a lot more. They are welcome to a lot more. I was asking the Prime Minister about the poorest fifth of households in this country and how much they pay in tax. The answer is that their tax has gone up from 37 per cent. of their income to 40 per cent., because under this Prime Minister, tax rises are for the many and not the few. He is the Prime Minister who said that there would be no tax increases at all. Does he accept the truth when the adviser who wrote to him—who has written to him a lot in recent weeks—tells him that he has been

undermined by a combination of spin, lack of conviction and…lack of integrity?

I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman's adviser is saying to him about his tax guarantee. To return to what he was saying about spending and tax—as a result of the commitments that we have given, the tax burden is falling, as I have said. I accept that we have made a choice to put investment into schools, transport, the police and the health service because we believe that that is the right priority for the country. The dividing line at the election is now clear: it is between a party willing to invest in our public services, and £16 billion of cuts under the right hon. Gentleman.

Madam Speaker,

The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government

I, personally, should be associated with.

all these things add up to a sense that the Government…are…out of touch with…British instincts

Apart from the points that the right hon. Gentleman made on the health service, education and crime, he says that he wants waiting lists to go down even further. Well of course, but that requires investment. He said that he wanted police numbers to start rising again. I agree, and that is exactly what we will bring about, but it needs investment. He said that there should he a reduction not only in class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, which we have reduced, but in other class sizes. We agree, but that requires investment. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that we are putting in the investment, and he has pledged to cut it.

No one any longer believes the Prime Minister's fiction about the Government's figures, let alone his fiction about the Opposition's figures. He need not be concerned about whether he is personally associated with eye-catching initiatives. As crime rises, he is personally associated with it. As the national health service deteriorates, he is personally associated with it. As taxes have risen, he is personally associated with that. As the Government drift, he is personally associated with that. Does he not realise that he does not need to write memos about getting his place in history, because we, and the British people, will make him part of our history far sooner than he ever expected?

The right hon. Gentleman said that we were making up the figures about his spending cuts pledge. He said that those figures were made up, but they are not. The Conservative research department has shown spending cuts of £16 billion.

Following the Chancellor's announcement yesterday, and in view of the fact that unemployment in Scottish constituencies such as mine has been almost halved since the general election—in accordance with our promises—does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was wise to decide to throw in the towel as the leader of the Scottish National party?

I do not think that I should comment on the decision of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to stand down. My hon. Friend will be aware, however, that the Conservative party wants cuts of £1.4 billion for Scotland. I am sure that will be of enormous assistance to my hon. Friend and his colleagues when they fight the next election.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that yesterday's statement by the Chancellor finally brings to an end 21 years of Conservative spending? As the Labour Government stuck to the Tory spending limits during the first three years of this Parliament, will he give us the official figures for the number of operations cancelled, the number of police positions lost, and the number of pensioners who dipped into comparative poverty, during that period?

It is correct that we had two tough years on public spending. Let me explain why. We faced a situation in which national debt had doubled; there was a borrowing requirement of £28 billion, and we were paying out more in interest payments on the debt than we were spending on the school system. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that 18 months ago, many people were predicting recession.

Would it not be fair of the Prime Minister—these are the official House figures—to confirm that the price paid over that period has been 179,000 operations cancelled, 1,700 fewer police officers and 400,000 pensioners who have dipped into poverty? When he puts those figures in that context, will the Prime Minister tell the House and the people who voted for him last time that this has been, to coin a phrase, a price well worth paying?

No. May I correct the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of pensioners, which I think that he or one of his colleagues raised last week? Those figures refer to the period before the minimum income guarantee, which will make a big difference to pensioner poverty, came into effect. Even in the straitened economic circumstances of the first two years, we put more money into schools and hospitals than the Liberal Democrats promised in their election manifesto.

Which does my right hon. Friend think will be of more interest to my constituents—a two-month-old leaked memo, or the £60,000 for each of the secondary schools in my constituency?

Of course we know why the Conservatives want to talk about that. However, what we should talk about is the clear strategic decisions that have been taken by both political parties over the past two weeks—for us, to put investment in our future first; for the Conservatives, to put boom and bust, and spending cuts guaranteed, before our essential services.

The television documentary on Saturday night showed that Alastair Campbell is at the heart of the spin machine for the Labour party. Can it be right that he goes on getting a £96,000 salary, paid for by the taxpayer? When I last asked the Prime Minister about Mr. Alastair Campbell's salary, he answered a totally different question about spin doctors. Will he this time answer the question that he has been asked, not one that he has not been asked?

I am entirely satisfied with the job that my chief press spokesman is doing—[Interruption.] Once again, the Conservatives are delighted to ask about anything other than the comprehensive spending review. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said before the election, in April 1997. He said that by embracing the minimum wage and the social chapter, the Labour party would increase unemployment and cut child benefit. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Townend, you are bursting a blood vessel.

We will see how many of the Conservative questions are about the spending review. What the right hon. Gentleman will have to explain at the next election is where he will find £24 million of spending cuts.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that the new deal has been made permanent, it will benefit the unemployed and, more importantly, it will benefit young people? Will he congratulate the 434 young people in my constituency who have benefited from the new deal? Does he also agree that if Conservative Members ever got back into power, they would wreck the new deal?

Of course Conservative Members are committed to scrapping the new deal. The new deal has been of fundamental importance, not just in getting people off benefit and into work, but because it has resulted in some of the £3.5 billion savings on benefits. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the Conservative party would scrap the new deal, and many of the cuts that it would then impose on the schools, transport and health budgets as a result of its spending cuts guarantee would also have a deeply adverse effect on my hon. Friend's constituents.

I shall ask a question about the comprehensive spending review. Will the Prime Minister tell my constituents not how much extra money will go into health and education, but how it will address the postcode lottery and bring about a fairer funding formula for education—both areas in which my constituents in Tewkesbury are disadvantaged?

I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that as a result of the extra money going into the health service, and in accordance with the advice tendered to us by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, we are able to fund drugs better in the health service. It is our desire to use that money to get rid of the postcode lottery.

In Barnet the police are very overstretched because of the sheer size of the geographical area that they have to cover—33 square miles, with 20 shopping centres. That is not unusual for outer London. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as the result of the very welcome announcement yesterday, the resources will be devoted to the police service in outer London to enable it to tackle the real problems of violent crime and vandalism, which cause such fear in our communities?

As a result of the announcement that was made yesterday, of course there will be more money for front-line policing, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make an announcement about that shortly. That is very important. I understand that there are two prospective Conservative candidates in my hon. Friend's constituency, because one was too extreme to be allowed to stand by Conservative central office, so my hon. Friend will be in the happy position of being able to ask one or both of them where they will find the £24 million of cuts.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in Vale of York the price of unleaded petrol has reached 96.9 pence a litre, which is more than £4 a gallon? Is he proud of the fact that he has increased petrol prices by 3.3 per cent. in line with inflation, but pensions by only 1.1 per cent.? Does he want pensioners to receive the message that petrol prices will go up, and they will have less money to pay for it?

In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I have said that in fact, the system that we use to calculate pensioners' increases is precisely the one that has been used for many years. In respect of petrol prices, as I have said at the Dispatch Box in the last year, the bulk of the increase has been due to the rise in the oil price—but I accept that in the first two years, we took the necessary action through the fuel duty escalator, which was introduced by the previous Government, to cut the deficit. A moment ago I read out what the shadow Chancellor said. The hon. Lady can sympathise with her constituents, but the fact is that she is not pledged to cut a single penny of the duty on petrol. It is important to recognise that there are choices, and we believe that it is sensible to have a stable economy and to invest in public services.

In April I raised the issue of the long-term care of the elderly with my right hon. Friend. According to the Chancellor, we are likely to hear good news next week about additional finances for that. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those additional finances will be sustained over a good number of years, thereby alleviating the hardship that many elderly people feel when receiving care in their own homes, or in residential or nursing care?

We will, of course, ensure that that is sustainable, if we have the authority to do so as the elected Government over the next few years. I do not want to prejudge the announcement that will be made next week, but it is important that we ensure that the issues of long-term care that were raised by the royal commission, which we set up, are properly dealt with. Again, we know that the Conservative party would cut the very money that we shall put into that.

Will the Prime Minister give a straightforward, concise and reasonably cogent answer—[Laughter.] Yes, I know that that last requirement will not be easy—to the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton)? Let me repeat that question, because clearly he did not hear it the first time: as Mr. Alastair Campbell will clearly play a central part in Labour's election strategy—[Interruption.]

Order. Government Members should listen to the question. [Interruption.] Order. Listen to the question, and listen to the answer.

As a recent television documentary revealed that Mr. Alastair Campbell is to play a central role in the Labour party's election strategy, should he receive a salary of almost £100,000 funded by the taxpayer?

As I have just said to the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), I am entirely satisfied with the work that Alastair Campbell is doing and with the fact that it is entirely proper, and entirely within the rules that are set out, that he does that work. Again, although the hon. Gentleman may think that the big issue in his constituency at the next election will be Alastair Campbell, I can tell him that it will be £24 million of cuts.