What recent discussions she has had with other departments regarding public information on the long term effects of designer drugs, with specific reference to ecstasy. [139175]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office apologises to the House for her absence. She is unwell and will not be undertaking ministerial duties today.

Although the drug of choice for many in the older generation is alcohol, many in the younger generation choose designer drugs such as ecstasy, and they often use the two drugs interchangeably. My fear is that there might be long-term psychological effects of taking ecstasy, even after using it just a few times, so are the Government carrying out research or other work to highlight those psychological effects, which people might not experience at the time of taking the drugs?

I, like my hon. Friend, am worried that that might be the case. Such issues are closely monitored by the Government. As a consequence, I can set out the effects of taking such drugs.

Will the Minister pass on our best wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office? We hope that she makes a speedy recovery.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious words. I am sure that my right hon. Friend perked up as soon as she heard them. No doubt all my hon. Friends would join us in wishing her well.

Does the Minister agree that, given the nature of profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies with shareholders, if we were foolish enough to legitimise designer drugs we would be in danger of those companies spending more and more of their research and development budgets on such drugs, looking for big profits, rather than on pharmaceuticals that would benefit the whole population? Will he assure the House that it is not in his mind to go down that route?

Absolutely not; in no circumstances would we do that. During the next three years we shall spend substantially more on tackling the drugs that come into this country, and the criminal gangs who use criminals with scientific qualifications to prepare such drugs so that they can be sold for profit. The Government want to smash such organisations, put those who sell such drugs behind bars and throw away the keys.

What priorities for action she has identified following publication of the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator's second annual report. [139176]

Our priorities are to build on the successes that we have demonstrated in the annual report. Our new investment will bring total annual expenditure on tackling the root causes of drug misuse to nearly £1 billion in 2003–04, targeting young people, and doubling spending on drug education and prevention from £63 million this year to £129 million in 2003–04; raising funding for treatment services from £234 million to £401 million, enabling us to expand and improve those services; doubling spending on safeguarding communities from £45 million this year to £95 million; and raising funding to prevent availability through conservative law enforcement activity from £353 million to a projected £380 million. That will help us to meet the strategy's challenging targets for 2008.

Is the right hon. Gentleman alarmed by figures recently released by the Office for National Statistics that show that, contrary to previous predictions, the number of children aged between 11 and 15 taking drugs continued to rise last year? As the Government's 10-year strategy appears to be failing to deliver for those youngsters, what further measures will be taken to address that deteriorating situation?

I, like the hon. Lady, read the report with interest, and a number of factors emerged from it. First, the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds who used drugs in the last month was 7 per cent.—the same as in 1998. The fact is that 85 per cent. of teenagers aged 11 to 15 have never tried drugs, and that is a credit to their common sense and the quality of the anti-drugs education that they receive at school.

The annual report contains little information on drug fatalities resulting from misuse of drugs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the report on reducing drug-related deaths produced for the Home Office in the summer. Are the Government making any attempt to sharpen up the information on the precise number of drug-related deaths, which is a mystery at the moment?

I assure my hon. Friend that he will receive an answer in response to Question 11, whether we reach it this afternoon or not, stating that we are considering the report on drug-related deaths, which covers what my hon. Friend describes as sharpening up the information about the causes of drug-related deaths. In addition, research is under way into what happens to people in the first year after leaving prison in terms of drug-related damage and deaths. We shall use that information to hone and improve our programmes further to provide stability and opportunities for people to come off drugs.

What steps have been taken to improve the ombudsman system. [139177]

In April this year, Phillip Collcutt and Mary Hourihan produced a survey of the services provided by the ombudsmen, which the Government used as the basis for a consultation document released in April. At present, the Government are considering the 250 responses to that document and we hope to give our views early in the new year

I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to try to review the system of ombudsman services for individuals in our communities. While my hon. Friend considers responses to the consultation exercise, will he pay particular heed to the fact that the ombudsman service to citizens would be greatly improved if people were allowed to contact the ombudsman direct? Will he also take up with ombudsmen the question of correcting mistakes in published responses to submissions to their offices?

Both the review and the Select Committee on Public Administration recommended that the MP filter be removed, as did virtually every consultee who wrote in to the original review. The Select Committee also asked Members of Parliament for their views, and they differed from the other consultees, as a majority of them wished to retain the MP filter—although in the latest survey, the number who wish to do so has fallen compared with the numbers in previous surveys. The Government will take into account all the views expressed in both consultations.

Why is there no ombudsman for Members of Parliament? What can we do when Ministers consistently take too long to reply, give inaccurate replies or cannot even be bothered to put their names on the bottom of their letters?

If the hon. Gentleman requires the assistance of an ombudsman, he should consider his position in the House. Most Members of Parliament are elected by the people whom they represent. Members on both sides of the House do their best, and do not need help from anybody outside to do their job. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that he does need help, he should consider further.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there are real difficulties with the ombudsman schemes? As we try to get closer working between different services, especially health and social services, complainants are faced with the difficulty of dealing with ombudsman systems that work quite differently. If we are to get joined-up government, we need joined-up complaints systems. I welcome the review, but will my hon. Friend make sure that its results produce legislation as soon as possible?

Obviously, I am not going to pre-empt any decisions on the legislative programme. My hon. Friend is right, as provision for each of the three ombudsmen—the health service ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the local government ombudsman—is made in three different pieces of legislation. The consultation document and the report by Collcutt and Hourihan point out that, as my hon. Friend says, there are overlapping areas, especially in health and social services, where the ombudsman's remit is not clear, or to which it does not extend. The changing nature of local government means that certain services have been taken out of local government and others have been put in, so some of the provisions of the Act that set up the office of local government ombudsman in 1967 are probably now inappropriate. That is why the reviews recommended a single commission, with generic ombudsmen covering the whole area of public services.

What are the trends in the numbers of complaints to the ombudsman schemes? Is the hon. Gentleman content with the average time that the various ombudsmen take to make decisions? What is the proportion of cases that ombudsmen decide do not come under their aegis, notwithstanding the fact that prima facie there appear to be good grounds to consider them?

The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. The local government ombudsman is currently dealing with 15,000 to 18,000 cases a year. On average, cases dealt with by the health service ombudsman take two years to complete. The local government ombudsman takes six weeks to three months to deal with a case. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration deals with only slightly more than 100 cases a year. The review will consider areas in which the overlap in matters under investigation causes a problem. It will also examine what inhibits ombudsmen from doing an even more effective job than they do at present, and will look at their efficiency. The report expresses the belief that the ombudsmen will be more efficient and effective if they are all in one commission, even though there will be more cases. The Public Administration Committee cast doubt on that assertion, but there is little doubt that removing the MP filter would lead to an increase in the number of cases.

What assessment she has made of the implications for the Government's drugs policies of decriminalising cannabis. [139178]

The Government's policy on all illicit drugs, including cannabis, is based on scientific evidence of the harm they cause. On the basis of that evidence, which the Government keep under review, we have no plans to decriminalise cannabis for recreational use. For example, a 1997 World Health Organisation report found that cannabis had acute and chronic health effects, including impairment of concentration and damage to mental health, learning capacity and manual dexterity. It also has an impact on respiratory diseases, including bronchitis and lung cancer.

I am sure that the Minister will remember the lobby of Parliament by sufferers of multiple sclerosis, which took place just before the summer recess. In meetings that were held around the Palace at that time, I spoke to many of those who were lobbying us and asked whether any of them there had not used cannabis for the symptomatic relief of their suffering, but I could not find one who had not. Does my right hon. Friend accept that no useful purpose would have been served by arresting and charging those MS sufferers, and that there is precious little social gain in criminalising the 97,000 people—mainly young people—who are arrested each year on cannabis-related charges? Does he also accept that sooner rather than later the House needs to recognise that we should reclassify cannabis within the same regulatory constraints that apply to alcohol and tobacco?

I can tell my hon. Friend two things. First, he should not confuse the medicinal use of cannabis with the dangers associated with uncontrolled use of the drug for illicit purposes. Secondly, the Government are currently licensing a major cannabis- based medicines development initiative conducted by GW Pharmaceuticals, as well as supporting scientific research projects into possible benefits of cannabis-based medicines. The results are expected in 2002. If they prove to be successful, the Government will support the licensing of new products, and that should lead to their being made available on prescription from mid-2003 onwards.

Will the Minister please convey my warm wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office? We really do miss her when she is not here.

I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's good wishes to my right hon. Friend. I am sorry that it is the monkey rather than the organ grinder who is here today.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Research from New Zealand, which was recently referred to by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), shows that the likelihood of going on to use other drugs is 60 times greater among regular cannabis users than among those who do not use cannabis. Will he therefore correct from the Dispatch Box the statement made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who said:

the scientific evidence is not yet available to suggest that smoking cannabis leads to

I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman had changed his ways and was trying cleverly to tease out a disagreement between myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. There is no disagreement within the Government about the matter; I could not have made it plainer where we stand. It was rather churlish of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there was a difference of opinion. There is no such difference.

Why is it that after 30 years of Britain having the harshest anti-cannabis penalties in Europe, cannabis use in this country is the highest in Europe, whereas after 25 years of regulated decriminalisation, cannabis use in the Netherlands is lower than here? The Netherlands has separated the two markets, so it has only a tenth of the number of heroin deaths per million people that we have. Is it sensible that in the same country and in the same week, a chief constable said that he would arrest anyone for recreational use of cannabis, while a desperately ill young woman was dragged through the courts for using cannabis medicinally? [Interruption.]

Order. Before the Minister replies, I ask the House come to order. Far too many conversations are taking place in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend has conducted a long campaign on this matter, but he is mixing up two important issues. I shall not repeat my remarks about medicinal use, which we will support if research proves that available products can be secured for 2003 onwards. I cannot, however, accept the naive proposition that drug traffickers and sellers somehow separate the sale of cannabis from that of other drugs. In Holland and other places, the availability to 12 to 15-year-olds of cannabis and other drugs has hugely increased. We should not take that road, as it is the road of despair. We must stick to our 10-year strategy and protect our young people from the effects of drugs. I know of no family in Britain that would sit back and say that their child should be dosed up on drugs. I do not believe that that would happen, or that any right-thinking family member would want to see any child of any age take cannabis.

Is the Minister aware that his quotations from the World Health Organisation were a selective collection of evidence about cannabis? There is much evidence to suggest that the opposite of what he said is correct. Will he establish a working party, a royal commission or another public body to examine all the research on cannabis and to consider the matter sensibly and logically before we proceed any further?

I can never for the life of me understand the Liberals on this issue. First, a royal commission is not needed to tell people that drugs are harmful, that they damage and kill children or that they destroy families and communities. Secondly, the World Health Organisation's evidence is medically based. It is nonsense for the Liberals to suggest that cannabis does not have the effects that I describe. That argument is irresponsible in the extreme.

What meetings she plans to have with the Disability Rights Commission to discuss the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for the civil service. [139179]

There are no meetings scheduled at present. The civil service's equal opportunities policy takes account of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Government are keen to ensure that disabled people can play their full part as employees of Departments. A new civil service-wide network for disabled people is being launched today by Sir Richard Wilson, head of the home civil service. The Disability Rights Commission will attend that launch.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am encouraged by his remarks about the activities and initiatives. Does he agree that access to employment and employment buildings is a key issue for disabled people? As more than 10,000 civil service employees are concentrated in Blackpool and the Fylde, but are fragmented across a number of agencies, will my hon. Friend use his best offices to ensure that they co-operate and work effectively on the matter, and do not become bogged down in turf wars?

In answering the question, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this connection. He has done a great deal of work in his constituency to help disabled people.

Before Prime Minister's Question Time, let me remind the House to pay attention to what I said last week about behaviour during Prime Minister's questions.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 November.

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.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the case of Ernie Obern, an 85-year-old ex-miner in my constituency? He has 90 per cent. dust in his lungs, he is on oxygen permanently, and he is bedridden. He is very ill at this moment. He has just received a letter from his solicitor telling him that it will be not months but years before he receives his full compensation.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak of her frustration on behalf of her constituent. Indeed, I have many constituents in the same position.

It is widely accepted that up to 15,000 care home beds were closed in the year to April. What is the Prime Minister's assessment of the number of beds that will be lost in the current year?

It is correct that 15,000 were lost; however, the net figure is 5,000, because many more were put on. It is also the case that some 20,000 were added as a result of packages for home care. As a matter of fact, as a result of the additional money put in by the health service plan, we do indeed aim to expand the beds to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as well.

Is not the truth that that will be a sticking plaster on the gaping wound that the Government have created? The Prime Minister's statistics suggest that he is not aware of what is happening around the country. This week, Cornwall reports that 400 beds have been lost since April this year; Kent reports 500, Surrey 500 and Hampshire 400. In some cases, the figures constitute 10 per cent. of total capacity in the counties involved.

Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was in office 60,000 beds were cut in the national health service. Indeed—I speak from memory—when he was Secretary of State for Wales, 1,200 beds were cut under his stewardship. But, as ever, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my original reply. I accepted that there was a 5,000 net loss in respect of the beds to which he referred; however, because of the extra home care and health packages, 20,000 have been put on elsewhere. As for the areas that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, yes, it is correct that in certain parts of the country there is real pressure on residential care. As a result of the national health service plan, however—the plan that the right hon. Gentleman opposed—we are getting the extra investment in the health service to deal with that.

We are clearly not getting the extra investment. If the Prime Minister wants to talk about what happened in Wales, when I was Secretary of State for Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, the Prime Minister was speaking from memory. I am speaking from the facts, which are more reliable than his memory. When I was Secretary of State for Wales, the total waiting list fell by 6,000. Since he has been Prime Minister, it has risen by 72,000 in Wales. Those are the facts, but is not the truth about care homes that the Government have failed to listen to the representations of the care homes themselves? From Norwich, they say:

I am concerned that my home will close

We wish to draw to your attention the potential catastrophe

Just to correct the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, in-patient waiting lists rose; he cut the number of nurses, he cut the number of doctors and he cut the number of beds. However, in respect of the regulations regarding these homes, as that is where his bandwagon is now parked, the regulations are introduced for a specific purpose. For years, the House debated the problems of abuse in those homes. The regulations are introduced to correct that. They are surely right.

I call Harriet Harman.

More, more.

Order. I have called Harriet Harman.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the family and the whole of Peckham are devastated by the appalling murder of Damilola Taylor? Will the Prime Minister tell the people of Peckham that he shares their grief, anger and steely determination that the hard work that they have put in over the past few years to improve their neighbourhood must not be abandoned, but must continue?

My right hon. Friend has spoken, rightly, on behalf of her constituents. There is shock and outrage not just in the House and in her constituency, but right across the country at the appalling and brutal murder of Damilola. As his brother said yesterday, we must do everything we possibly can to bring the killers to justice. There are other issues raised, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, but I think that today is the right day to express our outrage and our profound sympathy for the family.

Can I associate myself entirely with the sentiments that have been so properly and well expressed?

Thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister and the 10-year transport plan, we will put more money into our public transport system than has been put into our country's infrastructure since the 19th century. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, too, that that plan—£180 billion worth—is more than he ever promised at the last election? As ever, no matter what he promised, when we exceed it, he tells us that it is not enough.

I am sure that the whole country will be greatly encouraged by the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister may still be in charge of all those things if there is a second term, but is not the point to be made that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is too monolithic and too big for any one politician to be in control of it, particularly someone as big as the Deputy Prime Minister? Should we not have a specific Transport Secretary at Cabinet level to get transport in this country back on track?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, in respect of the railways, yes, of course there is a serious situation at the moment. We know what has caused it, following the Hatfield crash. As I emphasised at my meeting yesterday with the executives of Railtrack, those who represent passengers, the train operating companies and the Strategic Rail Authority, it is important that we inject some common sense back into the system. Today's meeting of the Railtrack board is important for that very reason. If it is the case—as it is—that people have to go on to the roads because there is not proper rail provision, that would be a risk. We have expressly asked people to take that into account.

Following the question from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, does the Prime Minister agree that—in the light of the announcement two weeks ago of a 100 per cent. increase in the highways maintenance budget and the forthcoming announcements on local transport plans to make real the —180-billion plan—soon, in my constituency of Oldham, East and Saddleworth, the potholes will be filled and the Liberal Democrats will have nothing to do?

It is of course the case that the investment is not only in the railways but in the road infrastructure, too. However, it is important to put that investment in context. We said that we had to take measures to stabilise the economy and reduce national debt; we have done that. We said that education would be our first priority; we have put the extra resources in education. The national health service plan followed, and then the transport plan. That money is going in and it will yield results, but that takes time. However, I totally understand the frustration particularly of people travelling on the railways. I can tell my hon. Friend that that investment is being made in his constituency, that it is being replicated in constituencies right across the country, and that it will make a difference.

Will the Prime Minister please tell me why, three and a half years after he came to power, hospital waiting lists in mid-Essex are 1,100 higher and rising?

I do not know about the particular position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although I will look into it—[Interruption.] I will look into it because I often find that the figures given to me by Conservative Members do not always entirely accord with the truth. However, whatever the situation may be in Essex, in respect of waiting lists nationally we have met our waiting list pledge on in-patient lists. It is correct that out-patient lists—which increased for years under the previous Conservative Government whom he supported—increased in the first two years, but they are now down from their peak and continue to fall.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large body of public opinion that maintains that the privatisation of Railtrack should be reversed? Who does he think is to blame for the fact that Railtrack is having a nervous breakdown? Was it caused by 20 years of neglect and gross under-investment by the previous Conservative Government? Is it a result of the fact that, on privatisation, thousands of professional railway personnel were sacked to increase profitability? Or is it a result of the fact that Railtrack ignored safety to increase profits? Will he also tell us what we will do to put right the railway network?

We inherited two problems. The first was fragmentation of the railways under the previous Conservative Government's privatisation proposals, and the second was chronic under-investment. Both those problems have to be tackled. The first is best tackled through the Strategic Rail Authority, which is now in place and working, and the second by our investment proposals.

Will the Prime Minister retract the comments which he made last month to the Royal College of Surgeons blaming general practitioners for abusing the admissions procedure? Is he aware that the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners has said that the Prime Minister's remarks, coming at a time of low morale and change, have served only to heighten the feeling that primary care is insufficiently valued by him and the Government?

First, I did not blame doctors. I said that it was important, as we are doing, to get some sort of system in place that allows these decisions to be taken on a rational basis. The British Medical Association is fully in favour of such protocols.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Saturday supporters of Jubilee 2000 will gather for a final rally to celebrate their coalition's considerable achievements, and to make clear their determination to press for debt cancellation? Will he take this opportunity to send a strong message of support to these campaigners? Will he ensure that his Government continue to place the highest priority on international development and the search for deeper and wider debt relief for the poorest countries of the world?

As a result of the work done by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, there are about 20 of the poorest countries in the world that by the end of the year will have had their debt cancellation put in place. That will make a difference of billions of dollars to those countries. It will allow them to spend that money on rebuilding their economies rather than paying interest on debt. It is part of a programme that the Government have been spearheading over the past three and a half years, not only nationally but internationally. One of the Government's proudest achievements is the rise in the proportion of national income that is going on overseas aid and development, and the difference that that is making to some of the poorest countries and to people who find themselves in the most difficult situations throughout the world.

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House at Prime Minister's Question Time that he was consulting over the abolition of community health councils. Will he now admit that all the time he was saying that he supported the work of the councils and that he wanted to consult on their future, that was totally untrue and he is now abolishing them?

We are indeed consulting upon them. We put forward proposals in the national health service action plan, and we shall continue consulting on them. I am aware of the strong feelings on both sides of the House, and we shall listen to those.

Every time the right hon. Gentleman is asked about the matter, he says that he is consulting. However, when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) that two weeks ago, he had to write to him afterwards to say:

I thought it would be helpful if I clarified the nature

Our proposals mean that Community Health Councils are to be abolished.

The letter continues:

This better describes the consultation I alluded to.

No. They are described as proposals because that is what they are. Yes, of course, that is what the Government consider to be the best way forward. We now, however, as will be familiar to people, consult on the proposals, and we shall listen to the representations that are made. There was a debate about this in the House yesterday. Of course the matter will be debated, and we shall listen to the representations made. That is the purpose of the NHS plan.

We support the Prime Minister trying to give an answer to some questions. He should read his letter, which states

that Community Health Councils are to be abolished … and replaced with an entirely new system.

the 69 year old lady who waited on a trolley in East Surrey Hospital for … 30 hours; the woman waited 35 hours in a chair before being seen.

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman some of the facts about the national health service and the money that is going into it. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like to hear this, because it is true. There are 10,000 extra nurses since we took office. Every accident and emergency department—including the one in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—has been modernised as a result of our investment. Extra money is going into primary care, medical training places and every part of the national health service.

The economy is not a very good issue for them because the … economy has gone pretty well. I don't believe the health service is a brilliant issue for the Conservative Party, the public will never perceive the health service as being the strong electoral card of the Conservative Party.

In the past three and a half years, the Government have done much to build on the relatively weak foundations of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I commend my right hon. Friend on his personal commitment in that respect, but is he aware that there remains a gaping hole in the disability legislation? The disability rights taskforce has identified problems with the rights of disabled children in education and of children with special educational needs. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that he will address those problems as soon as possible in the next legislative programme?

Yes; I am delighted to say that we will introduce the Special Educational Needs Bill in the next Session to improve the standard of education for all children with special educational needs. That will build on the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission, and it shows our intention to ensure that all children, whatever their background, get the chance to fulfil their potential in life.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that questions to do with holding ministerial office or sitting in a legislative assembly are constitutional issues. Given that the Belfast agreement dealt comprehensively with the constitutional issues relating to the British isles as a whole, why are the Government pursuing legislation that would enable a person to be a Minister in one country and also sit in another country's Parliament or assembly where there is a clear conflict of interest?

I am afraid that I do not accept that the legislation is a constitutional monstrosity. It gives people in Northern Ireland the same rights as those enjoyed by people in Commonwealth countries. I do not think that that is the wrong thing to do. I think that it is the right thing to do. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on this matter, but we do.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend was very pleased with the results of the three by-elections last week, and especially with the double victory in Glasgow, Anniesland. That was a great tribute to the memory of Donald Dewar, my predecessor in Aberdeen, South.

It is increasingly clear that devolution has strengthened the United Kingdom. The performance—or lack of performance—of the Scottish National party is an indication of that. I think that many people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in Scotland recognise that in introducing a stable economy—which has given people lower mortgages—and in getting 1 million extra jobs in the economy, as well as measures such as the working families tax credit, the new deal and providing extra money for pensioners, we are delivering on our promises to the people of Scotland and, indeed, the people of the United Kingdom.

On Monday this week, six children from Colerne primary school in my constituency delivered a petition to the Prime Minister, signed by every head teacher of every school in Wiltshire, calling for fair funding for Wiltshire. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government spend £1,000 less per pupil in Wiltshire than, for example, here in London? What is his response to their petition?

The allocations between various districts are, of course, a long-standing grievance. We have been looking at this, as did the previous Government. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman had the honesty to tell the children and those who gathered the petition that his party's proposals are to cut the extra education investment. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout and bawl as much as they like, but the fact is that we put forward plans for increased investment in schools. That money is going into schools, and the commitment by the shadow Chancellor is not to match that investment. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads—they should now understand that that is their policy, and they will have to defend it at the next election.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 6,000 people in this country are waiting for a kidney transplant because there is a desperate shortage of organs for donation? Does he therefore welcome the announcement by the Goldfish credit card company that it will issue its customers who want to be organ donors with a credit card bearing the organ donor symbol so that it can be carried with them at all times? Will he give his personal encouragement to other banks and building societies to follow this example so that we can increase the number of organ donors?

Yes, it is an excellent initiative. There is a real shortage of donors, and attaching the symbol to credit cards is an excellent way of increasing the numbers available. I fully support the initiative being taken by the company to which my hon. Friend refers, and I hope that it is taken up by others.

Why have productivity rates fallen so sharply since the right hon. Gentleman took office?

I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman, but productivity is rising. From memory, the latest figures show that productivity has risen by something like 3.4 per cent. in the past year. What is more, it is rising by more than 4 per cent. in manufacturing. So I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman, but the premise of his question is wrong.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that a new NHS Direct call centre has just started work at Stafford hospital, creating 100 new jobs in Stafford and serving more than 3 million residents of the west midlands? Is it not by modernisations such as NHS Direct that Labour is saving the national health service?

It is all part of the investment into the national health service plan. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the representatives of the health service whom I spoke to today, thought in particular that where NHS Direct worked with out-of-hours services by local general practitioners and with the local accident and emergency department, there was a significant reduction in the pressure on the accident and emergency department. That shows once more the need not just for investment but for a change in the way in which the health service works.

I make no apology for returning to the question of the Chinook helicopter that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in my constituency. Is the Prime Minister really aware of how deeply troubled so many people are that the two dead pilots should have been condemned by an unjust verdict of gross negligence, when in fact, the cause of the crash could not be determined? Will the Prime Minister please give the matter his personal attention, as he promised to do before, so that this tragedy can finally be laid to rest?

I am certainly aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. The last time the hon. Lady raised it with me I got back in touch with her and told her what I believed was the up-to-date position. I cannot, off the top of my head, offer any more details or information now, but again, I will go back and look at it and let her know the up-to-date position.

In the light of the recent report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, on human rights abuses in the occupied territories in Israel, will the Prime Minister add his efforts to those of the Foreign Secretary in seeking assurances from the Israeli Government that they will not use arms or equipment bought from this country against civilians in the occupied territories?

I certainly can assure my hon. Friend that we are engaged in doing what we can to help in this situation. Throughout, we have emphasised that two things must be put in place: first, the restoration of security—that applies not simply in respect of the Israeli forces, but also in respect of people from the Palestinian authority; and secondly, to ensure that, once some calm has been restored, a proper peace process is put back on track again. That is the only way to resolve the matter.

We had noticed.

The motion is in respect of the third and fourth Bills that it has been necessary to subject to a timetable motion this week.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I should like to deal with the matter in hand first, and then of course I will give way.

What is it then?

I am glad that that has been asked, on cue, by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

I am elaborating on this point, and I may even answer the hon. Gentleman's question without the need for an intervention from him.

Not by me.

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned that. The fact that it could easily have been filibustered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of the reasons why we had to have a timetable motion on that. Yet again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own side, having supported the principle of the Bill, could not deliver.

So what?

I was just going to say that there was a need for it. As far as we can judge, it has proved very successful.

I want to take the right hon. Gentleman back to one of his earlier points: was he arguing that the fact that there had been fewer Bills than usual was a plus? I should have thought that a better argument would be that there had been more Bills, so that there was less time per Bill. If the number of Bills is the same and the right hon. Gentleman has still got himself into this mess, he is quite incompetent.

I do not accept for a second that the Government are in any sort of mess. I was dealing with charges made in the House and elsewhere regarding our reasons for imposing guillotines—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way in a second.

The Bill left this House at Easter and its first day in Committee in the other place was on 11 May. After that, will the Secretary of State confirm that it did not reappear in the House of Lords until 10 October? Surely that delay is entirely down to the Government. If they had been prepared to bring the measure back earlier, the current logjam would not have occurred and we would not be facing this disgraceful situation today.

The hon. Gentleman would be correct had the other place been idle from the day on which the Bill left this House to the day on which it went into Committee in the other place. It is true that the Bill could have been scheduled earlier, but that would only have meant that—assuming that the Conservatives had behaved towards other measures as they did towards this one—some other measure would have been subject to the guillotine.

May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to his point that the Government do not command a majority in the other place? That is true. The right hon. Gentleman implies that a large number of amendments are passed by the other place contrary to the Government's advice, and that that is the source of his problem.

My recollection is that there are 666 amendments, one of which was passed contrary to the advice of the Government. However, the fact that there are a great number of amendments makes my point rather than the right hon. and learned Gentleman's—[Interruption.] A great number of amendments were tabled in response to the concerns that were expressed. Neither this House nor the other place can have it both ways. We have been listening, and I have been anxious to ensure that, so far as possible, we proceed with the Bill on the basis of consensus between the parties.

The Home Secretary is missing the point. He started with consensus on the Bill. Its main provisions were implemented by voluntary agreement between the parties in the Scottish elections last year, but he has now arrived at a pig's breakfast and the consensus has totally fallen apart, especially on section 4. That must surely be his responsibility. Is he seriously suggesting that a Bill with 666 amendments is in a fit condition to be guillotined?

I do not accept for a second that the consensus has fallen apart, but there will be disagreement about some issues. The hon. Gentleman refers to clause 4. I am not sure whether he is talking about the provisions on advice for the conduct of referendums. We have strengthened the provisions on controlling expenditure in referendums; they are far stronger than those proposed in the Neill report. I exempt the Scottish National party from criticism about party funding because, so far as I recall, they were always in favour of statutory controls on party funding, but I shall not take criticism from the principal Opposition party, because it presided over the most scandalous situation with regard to the funding of political parties. In the face of all sorts of unacceptable things that appeared to be going on, we called for the Nolan committee on standards in public life to be allowed to examine party funding.

The Conservatives fought it.

They not only fought it, but refused to allow the Nolan committee to look at the matter. It has fallen to us to clean up the conduct of British politics—we said that we would do so in our manifesto—first by asking what became the Neill committee to study the matter and then by introducing the changes that we propose.

rose—