What assessment he has made of the impact on the aviation industry in South Wales of the possible relocation of aero-engine jobs at RAF St. Athan to the south of England; and if he will make a statement. [136862]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first Welsh Question Time since you became Speaker, may I, on behalf of all Welsh Members, wish you well in your office?

Will my right hon. Friend meet the Secretary of State for Defence at the earliest opportunity, to discuss not only the possible loss of jobs but the proposal to move DARA from RAF St. Athan to Cardiff airport? I understand that that could result in as few as half the work force being invited to move with DARA, leaving far too few personnel to run the biggest military support base in western Europe. If that hare-brained proposal was accepted—I doubt that it will be—thousands of jobs would be at risk. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to do all in his power to put a stop to it.

As I said previously, DARA has proposed a transfer of engine overhaul work, which comprises about 165 civilian staff, to another site in Hampshire. That is the only firm proposal of which we are aware that poses any threat to jobs, and it is subject to full consultation. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

When he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union in Wales to discuss the impact of fuel duty upon hill farmers. [136863]

In the past few weeks, I have met representatives of both the main Welsh farming unions and discussed a wide range of issues, including fuel duty. I have also met a delegation of farmers, hauliers and others, led by Mr. Brynle Williams.

If, as he claims, the Secretary of State has been meeting hill farmers, why was he not able to secure a better deal for them in the Chancellor's recent statement? Did he read the evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry from Mr. Pratt, a hill farmer in the Brecon Beacons, who said that his total net income last year was £1,600 and that, as a result of extra taxes on fuel, his costs have already increased by £2,654 this year? Why should Mr. Pratt have to pay the highest fuel taxes in Europe so that the national health service can be subsidised?

The hon. Gentleman's last comment was unworthy, as I am sure that all the farmers in Wales are conscious of the need to make sure that the NHS and all our public services are properly funded.

In my right hon. Friend's talks with hill farmers on the impact on their livelihood of fuel duty, was there any discussion of the decisions of the previous Government, with their totally London-centric, overbearing attitude of omniscience? They pushed aside the advice of the chief medical officer of the then Welsh Office that there was something badly wrong with the handling of the BSE crisis. If they had listened to Wales, hill farmers would not have half the trouble that they have today.

All of us have read the report and are conscious of the fact that officials in the Welsh Office at the time were extremely diligent in the advice that they gave. As it turned out, their advice was timely but, unfortunately, it was not followed by their colleagues elsewhere in Whitehall—although I guess that is a matter for another debate.

Mr. Speaker, as this is your first Welsh Question Time as Speaker, I echo the personal good wishes of the Secretary of State.

The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom were governed for two decades by the Conservative party. Many of the difficulties that are now facing us in Wales are a direct consequence of decisions taken by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

After 50 years of generous and very large subsidies for farmers in this country, how is that farmers in New Zealand, who have not received a penny in subsidies for the past 15 years, can produce meat, have it transported across the world and offer it on the British market at a lower price than that charged by farmers in Wales? Is not the truth that subsidies are not the answer to but the cause of farmers' problems?

Happily, it does not fall on my shoulders to answer questions on New Zealand agriculture. Although I accept my hon. Friend's point, I am sure that he is aware that the farming community in rural Wales faces genuine problems, which the Government are doing their best to overcome.

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on rail services to Wales and the west country. [136864]

I have regular discussions with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport.

Must not Isambard Kingdom Brunel be turning in his grave at what has happened to God's wonderful railway? There have been broken rails, a criminally dangerous signalling system at Paddington and clapped-out locomotives that simply break down half the time. Do not the people of Wales and the west country deserve a better railway system? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it his business to talk to his colleagues and to authorities in Wales, and on the other side of the bridge in the west country, to ensure that we have the railway system we deserve?

I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more, especially because, many years ago, I had the privilege of fighting his seat in the west country. As I am now Secretary of State for Wales, he will be aware that I failed to win that seat.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that our constituents want railways to be run as a public service, whereas those who currently run railways are interested not in providing a service but in making a quick profit?

I am sure that most hon. Members believe that many of the problems that we are currently facing were the direct result of the ideological and misguided policy of railway privatisation, which was carried out by the Conservative Government during their final years in power. They were warned that privatisation would be a disaster, and that turned out to be the case.

I, too, offer you our congratulations on your appointment, Mr. Speaker, and wish you well in your responsibilities.

I could not agree more. Our railway system across north Wales, and the section of the trans-European network from Ireland to England, is one of the most important links between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, as well as between different parts of Wales. I hope that the Strategic Rail Authority will take that into account in considering bids for the single franchise.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the removal of all Virgin services to north Wales constitutes major discrimination against my constituents and others? Yesterday, two people from north Wales wanted to travel to the House of Commons to attend a reception connected with lupus, a serious medical condition. The only way in which they could have come to London was by reserving seats, and that facility was not available to them, although it is available on some Virgin services between London and other parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend please undertake to investigate this unsatisfactory state of affairs?

My hon. Friend is, of course, right about the inconvenience caused to her constituents, which is also experienced by Members and their constituents throughout Wales. As she knows, following a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister last Thursday, Rail track announced that the bulk of the necessary track repairs would be completed by Christmas, and the remainder by Easter. It also announced that the industry planned to publish a national track recovery plan this Friday—which, as I have told the House, will include details of a sustainable timetable that will come into force next Monday.

When he last met the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the current employment prospects for the country; and if he will make a statement. [136865]

I meet the First Minister regularly and discuss a wide range of issues, including employment in Wales. There has been a steady increase in employment. The number of people of working age in employment in Wales has increased, from more than 1,181,000 in May 1997 to more than 1,215,000 in May 2000. Figures published today by the labour force survey of the Office for National Statistics show that the number of people in work in Wales is now 1,261,000.

Gross domestic product in Wales has fallen by 3 percentage points since new Labour took office, and we have lost several thousand jobs in the Japanese hi-tech industries in south Wales recently. Have the Minister and the Secretary of State made any representations to their colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry? If not, why not?

We have regular discussions with all Departments about the economy in Wales.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Welsh development agency and the Devonshire county council economic development committee on the creation, in the past four weeks alone, of 480 jobs at WTS Holdings in Prestatyn, 170 jobs at Hotpoint in Bodelwyddan, 150 jobs at TRB in St. Asaph, 1,000 proposed jobs related to Devonshire county council objective 1 projects, and 300 jobs at Morrison's superstore?

I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating those companies on creating jobs—[Interruption.]

Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber. The House must come to order.

The job opportunities in Denbighshire and my hon. Friend's constituency are in no mean part due to his efforts. The employment increases that have occurred are part of the strong, stable economy that we have in Wales—as, indeed, are the 80,000 new jobs that have been created since the general election. We now have the lowest level of unemployment in Wales for some considerable time—certainly, lower than that throughout the Conservative years.

Given last week's finding of the National Centre for Social Research that 80 per cent. of those who have supposedly found jobs through the new deal for young people would have got them any way; that people completing the training and education option of the new deal are twice as likely not to get a job as to get one, and that the average cost for each job through the new deal is about £17,000, why does not the hon. Gentleman give up the unequal struggle and admit that the new deal for young people provides a rotten service at a rip-off price?

I should be surprised if a Question Time went by without the hon. Gentleman whingeing about the new deal. The real issue is that youth unemployment in Wales has fallen by 75 per cent. since the general election. That is in no mean part due to the efforts of the new deal and the Employment Service. I have met new deal workers throughout Wales, all of whom benefit from the scheme. Employers enjoy the scheme and find it worth while, as do the people on it. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, they know that the Conservative party would abolish it. That will help us no end at the general election.

Last week, I met some young people on the new deal—people who have been given hope and opportunity as a result of being taken into work by the new deal. They are the sort of people who were abandoned by the Conservative party. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be rather nice if the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) were to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who is sitting next to him, and persuade Plaid Cymru in the National Assembly for Wales to start helping this Government and the Government of Wales in the Assembly to make the most of the opportunity provided by objective 1 to create jobs and opportunities for young people and all people in Wales?

Whingeing is not the prerogative of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow); with regard to objective 1, it is also that of Plaid Cymru Members. The new deal is working in Wales; it has created jobs and reduced unemployment, especially among young people. It is worth while, but the Conservative party does not support it, and Plaid Cymru is a little lukewarm about objective 1.

Sadly, today's figures show that unemployment is on the rise and, indeed, that unemployment in Wales is on the rise, with thousands of job losses in the manufacturing sector. The M4 corridor used to be a magnet for inward investment. Now, unfortunately, it is job-loss alley, with Panasonic, Sony, Hitachi and Corus announcing recent job losses. Does the Minister think that the introduction of the climate change levy as proposed by the Government will help or hinder job creation in Wales?

From the Ribble Valley, unemployment may appear to be rising in Wales, but those of us who represent seats in Wales know that it is definitely falling. The figures announced today show that unemployment is lower than it was yesterday. That is a genuine fact for the hon. Gentleman to chew on in due course. Despite the difficulties with Sony and other companies, there is still a great deal of high-tech investment in Wales. It should not be forgotten that 3,000 people still work for Panasonic and Sony in Wales.

Does not that response show that the Government are simply not listening? While the Labour-dominated Welsh Assembly is spending more than £40 million on a new building for itself—three times the original estimate—businesses are being attacked by the Government on several levels, with £5 billion of extra taxes, as well as £5 billion of extra regulation, being heaped on them. Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to sign up to anything in Europe, which will make Britain less competitive than other countries. That means that we are exporting jobs from this country to our competitors. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives of the employers—the CBI, the Institute of Directors and especially the Federation of Small Businesses—and listen to them, particularly in regard to their campaign to ensure that the climate change levy does not damage Wales?

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has yet again missed the point. If he had listened to what I said, he would have heard that unemployment has fallen by 80,000 in Wales since the general election. There is positive investment in our community in Wales. It is creating jobs. The Secretary of State meets businesses, the CBI and small businesses regularly—I was with him on Friday evening last week—to discuss issues. They know that the way to a strong economy is through the Government's policies. The Ribble Valley ranter can rant on all he likes, but he will not get far.

Will my hon. Friend, when he meets the First Secretary, raise with him the recent report that the venture capital firm 3i has closed its offices in Cardiff because of a lack of business opportunities and moved to Bristol? Will he press the First Secretary to do everything that he can to remedy the situation that created that?

I will look into my right hon. Friend's points. I am not aware of the situation that he has raised, but I will look into it and discuss it with the First Minister.

What recent discussions he has held with the Environment Agency regarding river flooding in Wales and England. [136866]

In recent weeks, the Under-Secretary and I have discussed the matter with the Welsh Minister for the Environment, Transport and Planning and others. I am pleased to tell the House that, last Friday, while visiting flood-affected areas of north Wales, I was able to announce that the Welsh block would be increased by some £3 million over the next four years, consequential on additional funding for flood prevention in England. On that visit, I was able to see the results of the dedicated hard work of the emergency services and local authorities in dealing with that serious state of affairs.

I reiterate the words of welcome that you, Mr. Speaker, have been given today.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the £3 million is not the only money that is going into flooding in Wales. That is for flood defences over the next number of years, but, only this week, the Assembly has indicated that it will look carefully at all the points, including the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman. In addition, the Bellwin formula has been improved. It will help local authorities and help directly all the people affected by the floods.

As well as talking to the Environment Agency, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with his friends in the Cabinet and with the Association of British Insurers to see if help can be obtained for those unfortunate people in my constituency and elsewhere who have not been able to obtain insurance against flooding?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he is aware, the Government are committed to discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry can respond more quickly and effectively to such emergencies.

In his discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, has the Secretary of State extracted a date for the implementation of new national planning guidance policy—PPG25—and considered the impact on drainage, in particular of new houses being built on flood plains?

No, but I am aware of what the hon. Lady is referring to. This week, the Minister for the Environment, Transport and Planning made a statement to the National Assembly. She is aware of the points that the hon. Lady has made and is looking carefully at future planning applications in areas affected by flooding.

May I inform my right hon. Friend that my constituents in Tintern, Usk and Maesygwartha, near Gilwern, were affected by the recent flooding? Although they commend the work of the emergency services and the county council, who helped in the clear-up, there is clearly a need for local authorities to have more powers and more resources, on the same basis as those provided to the Environment Agency, to invest in flood prevention work.

Yes; I am very conscious of the points that my hon. Friend has made. His constituency is next to mine, and I know the problems that his constituents have faced. I shall ensure that the points he has made are taken up with the First Minister.

What his policy is on proportional representation.

We set out our position in October 1998, and again in June 1999, and it has not changed.

Why is it that the Prime Minister is so much more reticent about his position on proportional representation with Members of this House than he used to be with the former leader of the Liberal Democrats when he was trying to carve out a shady deal for a permanent Lib-Lab coalition based on PR? If he will not answer that, will he at least answer this? Will he give an assurance that he will not give his support in the future to a system based on the alternative vote—which is not even proportionate, but simply exaggerates the winning party's number of seats even more than the first-past-the-post option does?

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question betrayed a certain nervousness. On the first point, we have introduced proportional representation for the European elections and for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. In relation to PR, however, I am not in favour of any system that breaks the link between constituency and Member of Parliament.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 November.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall the dire warnings from Conservative Members that the national minimum wage would cut the number of jobs in this country by more than 1 million? [Interruption.] Does he therefore share my scepticism about their apparent conversion now that we have the highest employment levels for a generation? Nevertheless, many young people, including those who came to my youth forum just last week, feel somewhat disadvantaged. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider removing the temporary differential youth rate for those who are under 22?

As we said at the time, we shall keep that under review. However, I think that it is important to recognise that the way in which the minimum wage has been implemented should not, and currently does not, affect youth unemployment levels. Indeed, long-term youth unemployment has been more than halved under this Government. As for my hon. Friend's comment on Conservative Members, as she read out the prediction that they made before the general election, some of them were shouting, "We were right." I do not think they realise that the position has changed, and that there are now 1 million more jobs in the economy, with the introduction of the minimum wage, than there were at the time of the general election.

Last week, the Prime Minister tried to blame everyone but himself for the dome disaster. Now, we have had the National Audit Office report and a full account of his Cabinet meeting. Can he confirm that the member of the Cabinet who insisted that the project should proceed and said that it "could even make money" was him?

It is certainly true that I said that it should proceed. It is also true, however, as we demonstrated conclusively last week, that funding for the dome, financial management, the dome and the site itself were all agreed by a Cabinet committee when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of it. We still have not had his admission that he was a member of that committee. Perhaps he will admit it, or not, when he asks his next question.

The Prime Minster did not only say that it should proceed. From the minutes of that meeting, we know the following:

Blair: We are already getting more inquiries from the private sector. There could be a billion pounds of revenue for the UK.

Blair: It is a bit of fun and a bit of learning.

We can always blame the Tories if we stop now. If we go ahead we'll have to take the blame if the whole lot goes wrong.

First, the right hon. Gentleman should not confuse Cabinet minutes with what appears in The Mail on Sunday, Secondly, if he is in the business of quotes, this one is from December 1999:

But the decision was made by the previous government and this one to do it. Having spent that money, I think it's now the job of all politicians to make a success of it. So we shall go there and join the party.

More!

Of course we enjoyed the party: we were laughing at the right hon. Gentleman. So there we have it: no resignation and a special exemption from the ministerial code for the Prime Minister's old flat mate. We used to have government by Parliament, then it was by Cabinet. Now we have government by clique. Is not the only reason that the right hon. Gentleman clings on to the discredited dome Minister that, although he may be a useless Minister, he is very convenient as a human shield? Should not the Prime Minister now be man enough to stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the nation without blaming it on somebody else?

Last week we had the major economic statement for the country and one might have expected the right hon. Gentleman to have asked about it. It is interesting that, this week, he cannot ask about the economy or public services.

From the outset, I was a supporter of the dome…I know that there are domophobes—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Maclean, be quiet.

The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said:

From the outset, I was a supporter of the dome…I know that there are domophobes on both sides of the House—people who think the whole project was destined to be a failure…I am not one of those people.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1306.]

While I welcome the extra money for schools in the pre-Budget report, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that it is paid out as quickly as possible? Assuming that the Welsh Assembly uses the £9.9 million allocated to it by the Chancellor for schools, schools in my constituency will get a welcome and much-needed boost.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to read out the list of schools in her constituency because each one of them will get extra money from the Labour Government. What we now know, courtesy of the shadow Chancellor, is that the Tories would take that money back off those schools. That extra money is there. It is going into the largest real-terms rise in education spending that this country has seen for years.

On the national health service, is the Prime Minister aware of the number of so-called excess winter deaths that occurred last winter, and will he confirm the figure?

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by the term "excess winter deaths," but it is of course the case that there were severe pressures on the NHS last winter. Those pressures will be easier this year, at least in terms of our being prepared for them, because of the additional money that has been put into the NHS. As many people in the NHS have been saying over the past few days, in winter there is always more pressure. However, we are better prepared and the health service is better funded.

Successive Governments have recorded the numbers of excess winter deaths occurring in the December to March period, when the number of unfortunate deaths rises as a result of climatic and other conditions. Last year, the figures showed that there were 54,000 deaths in the period. There will be another national winter crisis this year. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge in the House this afternoon what he has acknowledged elsewhere—that the persistent under funding of the health service in the first half of this Parliament means that doctors, nurses and patients will have to cope with excess winter deaths again? Does he not accept that there is a degree of urgency about the need for a national plan to combat this disgrace in our country?

This Government have put far more money into health service funding than the Liberal Democrat party has ever asked for. However, we had to make sure that any funding that we put into the national health service could be sustained year on year on year. For far too long, there was boom and bust in health service spending, with money put in one year being taken away the next. Now, over a four-year period, there will be the largest sustained increase in health service investment, and we will be able to keep it up. As a result, there are more nurses, doctors and beds. However, it will take time for those people to be trained fully.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending our best wishes to the remaining British miners and their families, following today's announcement that the European Union has accepted the Government's aid package to the coal industry? I am sure that he will agree that that package will secure the jobs of many thousands of people. However, would he also agree that it is to the eternal shame of the Conservative party that, when in power, it set out to destroy not only Britain's mining industry but the people who relied on it totally?

People will remember the record of the Opposition. Many people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other constituencies who are dependent on coal mining will welcome today's news. It is a case of the Government helping the industry restructure and make change in a way that preserves jobs and the fabric of local communities. That stands in sharp and stark contrast to the policies of the previous Government.

The people of Guildford are deeply concerned by plans to put a giant incinerator in our county town. This month, we learned that Government officials have tried to hide the health hazards caused by such incinerators. Why does that culture of secrecy still fester? Why did Labour and Liberal Democrat peers vote last night for a Minister's right to hide information, and against the people's right to freedom of information?

So now the Conservatives are the champions of freedom of information. [Laughter.] No, let us be fair. It is just that for 18 years, it slipped their minds somehow. Indeed, at the last election, I seem to remember that in their manifesto they called it an unnecessary gimmick.

Many hon. Members will have seen the media coverage of the village of Gowdall in my constituency, which has been submerged by the worst floods in more than 300 years. Residents are concerned and angry at some of the actions of the Environment Agency, fuelled by its refusal to meet villagers last night. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will ensure that there is an investigation into the actions of the agency; that the flood defences will be looked at and improved if necessary; and that the Government will play a full and active role in regenerating communities such as Gowdall, including fast-track support wherever possible?

I am certainly happy to look into the issue of the Environment Agency's refusal to meet residents in my hon. Friend's constituency who have been affected by the floods, and I will be in touch with him about it.

Will the Prime Minister explain how a European super-power would not be a European super-state? In his speech on 13 November at Mansion House, he said that it was obvious to him. Will he give the British people a White Paper on the constitutional and political implications of the process towards European integration?

Where nation states acting in unison can do more in common than they can alone, that, it seems to me, is the reason for the European Union. Examples of such states being able to exercise more power and strength together than alone include the current negotiations over Kyoto, world trade and areas of foreign policy where, as a result of us operating together, we are more powerful than individual nations. In other words, we are a super-power.

The Prime Minister will know that last month Amnesty International launched its global campaign against torture. What steps will the Government be taking to meet the objectives of the campaign? Will my right hon. Friend be working in this Parliament to ensure that we have legislation to ratify the International Criminal Court statute and to outlaw the broking of torture equipment?

We are, of course, committed to making sure that we introduce legislation for the International Criminal Court. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks on acts of torture. This country has fought a very strong, solid campaign over a number of years in respect of human rights abuses wherever they occur, and we will carry on doing so.

Will the Prime Minister expand on his definition of a super-power which he offered a few moments ago? He said on Monday that he wanted Europe to be a super-power. Can he name a super-power at any time in the history of the world that has not had its own currency, its own taxes, its own army and its own Government?

I cannot name another institution like the European Union, which is precisely why it is a unique union of member states which are nation states coming together to exercise more power than they can alone exert. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an example of Europe as a super-power, he should look at trade negotiations. We are not able, as the United Kingdom, to make a real impact on world trade, but we are as the European Union. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, perhaps he can get up and say so.

We did not ask the right hon. Gentleman for two minutes of waffle about Europe. We asked him whether any super-power ever had not had those assets which we listed. We take it from his response that the answer is no. There has never been a super-power without its own currency, taxes, army and Government, just as there has never been a Prime Minister who used words so carelessly to please the audience of the moment. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has argued for a super-power, all he could say when the German Foreign Minister called yesterday for an elected head of Europe was that the "time was not right" for that idea. Can he think of a super-power, as he would have it, that has not had an elected head? [Interruption.]

In view of the events of the past week, that is a rather unwise question to ask me. Of course, Mr. Fischer has his view. He wants a European federal super-state. That is true. What is the response of Conservative Members? They hitch up their skirts, go to the sidelines and say, "Get on with the debate, we'll have nothing to do with it." We should enter into that debate and say why we are against the super-state but in favour of more co-operation.

I do not think that one can have a federal Europe…The creation of a United States of Europe is not realistic, because not a single nation is prepared to give up its identity.

We can get a straighter answer from a Florida recount than from the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House. He says that there is a difference between a super-state and a super-power, but there is no example in history to support him. Those who favour a super-state have taken support from his words. The truth is that he wants Europe to be a super-power when the only possible result of such a policy is the creation of a super-state and the end of Britain's independence. Cannot we now see that in the Government's handling of European policy we have a disaster in the making, a distinction without a difference and a Prime Minister without a clue?

As usual, with the right hon. Gentleman's pre-rehearsed little jokes, he makes his point. However, he has mentioned the negotiations that are coming up at Nice. His position is to be against any extension of qualified majority voting.

More!

Ann Cryer.

rose—

Order. I called Mrs. Ann Cryer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear.

The Leader of the Opposition went around the country a couple of weeks ago claiming that we were in crisis because of the floods, proving only that bandwagons can be amphibious. I do not know the circumstances of the Conservative leadership of Bradford council, and can only hope that it soon changes back to Labour.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his proposals to scrap community health councils—independent watchdogs for NHS patients, such as Cheshire Central and Chester and Ellesmere Port—is bitterly opposed by my constituents, by patients and by staff? Will he drop those plans?

I am aware that there is bitter opposition, which is why the proposals are being consulted on. If he goes round the country, however, the hon. Gentleman will find that people in certain areas do not believe that community health councils have been as effective as they might have been. It is precisely because we want to consult that we have issued the health plan. We will report back to the House in due course on the consultation.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the better regulation taskforce report on environmental regulation and farmers? Will he take from it the need further to improve control of British bureaucracy's implementation of European regulations?

Yes, I welcome that report, because it makes it clear that we should be careful in implementing European legislation to ensure that we do so with the lightest possible touch. However regulation is extremely important in such areas as safety issues, for example BSE. A balance must be struck, and we are trying to get it right. I very much welcome the report and believe that we shall act on it.

On 13 July, the Prime Minister gave the House an absolute commitment that on the Liaison Committee's report on parliamentary scrutiny there would be free votes on the Government side. Last Thursday, the Leader of the House shaded that commitment by saying that it would be contingent on the Government putting down substantive motions. Will the Prime Minister honour his July commitment by ensuring that the Government put down substantive motions?

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons tells me that she did no such thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes she did."] Well, there is always a free vote on House matters, and the right hon. Gentleman has my assurance that that will remain so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that pensioners face in claiming their full entitlements? The measures announced last week are to be welcomed, but we know from the 60,000 currently claiming the minimum income guarantee that they still have problems in receiving what they are entitled to. What will the Government do to ensure that more people will be able to claim the minimum income guarantee?

There has been a problem, which is why we launched a campaign to ensure that pensioners entitled to the minimum income guarantee should receive it. I understand that about half a million more pensioners are now claiming it. Those measures, together with additional money for pensions, the winter fuel allowance and free television licences, are an important signal of our commitment to Britain's pensioners. In relation to the winter fuel allowance, free television licences and the Christmas bonuses, the Conservatives' policy is to take those things away from Britain's pensioners.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Royal Ulster Constabulary on intercepting the mortar bomb at Derrylin and the bomb in west Belfast that was destined for the City of London? Will he join us in calling for a moratorium on changes to policing until peace is assured in Northern Ireland?

On the first point, of course the work of the RUC has, as ever, been absolutely invaluable in stopping acts of terrorism. On the Patten reforms, we think that it is important that the reforms should proceed and that, at the same time, all the varied aspects of the agreement into which parties have entered should be implemented properly.

Caroline Hint.

My question has already been asked, so I shall sit down.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is due to make a speech today in which he will point out that there is a winners' circle of prosperity in London and south-east England to the detriment of other areas in the country. However, if 700 jobs go at Biwater Industries of Clay Cross, which manufacturers pipes, for no reason apart from a rip-off effect, north-east Derbyshire will become a losers' circle. Will my right hon. Friend therefore have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get that matter referred to the Competition Commission, which is the last means of saving those jobs?

I will certainly look into the issue in my hon. Friend's constituency and get back to him as soon as possible.