When the appointment of the e-envoy will be announced. [144195]

The selection is being overseen by the civil service commissioners and is being made in accordance with the civil service commissioners' rules for recruitment to the civil service.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my view that, with the publication of the communications White Paper—which might lead to a new Department after the next election—we need an internet Minister first, rather than a new e-envoy?

I did not quite catch the gist of my hon. Friend's question, but I think that it was about the Government's current and future proposals for the management of Government policy in respect of e-Government issues. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce is responsible for co-ordinating the whole e-agenda. I am responsible for the e-Government agenda and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), is responsible for access to skills. Of course, we also have a champion for the e-agenda at Cabinet level: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Although I am sure that the whole House will be thrilled at the knowledge that a new e-envoy is shortly to be found, why did the Government state on the resignation of Alex Allan back in October, when it had been known for some time that he would resign in October, that a replacement would be found in December? It now seems that a replacement will not be found much before February.

There has been absolutely no delay and an announcement will be made soon. Not only has there been no delay, but we immediately appointed an acting e-envoy, someone with considerable experience, who has continued the work. As a consequence of that, we are able to announce today that we are ahead of our target for the number of services already on the internet. More than 40 per cent. are already on it and we are ahead of delivering our target in 2005.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most important aspect of e-commerce is the effect that it has on opportunities for British exporters? Therefore, alongside the services that we have for e-commerce and e-business generally, we need to create more opportunities for those setting up websites and entering e-commerce to learn basic business skills, so that they can offer the support to their clients and customers overseas that good business men always try to offer.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce and my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment have put a huge multimillion pound project in place to give help, advice and training not only to individuals, but to small businesses in particular. The programme will deliver for the United Kingdom the best environment in Europe for doing e-business, both here and abroad.

I, along with all other hon. Members, have received a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Department giving details of how an extra £54 million will be spent in the Court Service. However, the expenditure of that money is subject to the approval of the e-envoy. Why?

We announced in the review of information technology projects—99.9 per cent. of them were mistakes left by the previous Government—that we would put in place systems to ensure that, where Departments roll out programmes and technology, those programmes fit a system so that, when they are rolled out, they will be successful and have a rigorous business plan attached to them. The proposals that we set out in the document on improving information technology have been signed up to by all Ministers and all Departments. That will ensure that, in future, IT programmes in any Department will be of high quality. When they go online, they will work successfully.

What plans she has to review the attachment of next steps agencies to Government Departments. [144197]

Next steps agencies are subject to regular reviews, usually at five-yearly intervals. These examine all status options, including the positioning of the agency under review within a given Department.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept that the positioning of the next steps agencies within particular Departments owed more to their origin within those Departments than to their function? Does she agree that, after 12 years of their working, a review of functions would be appropriate, with a view to ensuring that the agencies are appropriately placed?

I take my hon. Friend's point, which I can assure him has not been ignored, because it is one that the Department has spent some time considering. As I said in answer to his first question, we review the agencies every five years, and they are also under constant yearly review, and the issue that he raised is included in that process. We have not changed the host Department of any agency, but we have much more cross-cutting work between Departments and agencies so that their public service agreements are shared and their production is maximised.

One understands why the next steps agencies were set up, but is the Minister convinced that there is proper scrutiny of those agencies by Parliament?

From where I sit, yes. We scrutinise well, and if Parliament does not scrutinise the agencies, that is Parliament's responsibility, not mine. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not let the agencies go unscrutinised. They perform an important function in the delivery of programmes, and I assure him that if there is inefficiency or ineffectiveness, we will not let it grow.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservative Government's creation of the next steps agencies—organisations that dispose of countless billions of pounds of public money and have intimate dealings with many millions of our fellow citizens—was one of that Government's most disgraceful innovations, as it destroyed genuine parliamentary accountability? Does she agree that no more of those agencies should be created and that the reincorporation of their functions within Departments for which Ministers are responsible to this House will be as significant in advancing democracy as the previous Government's action was in destroying it?

I hear what my right hon. Friend is saying. I assure him that we do not let next steps agencies act as free agents. There is constant review and monitoring of their actions. I must add that there are more ways to achieve accountability, transparency and good delivery of public services than through Departments.

Since the attachment of the next steps agencies to Departments, how much money have they saved through market testing, and how does that figure compare with the savings achieved by the Departments themselves?

I am afraid that I do not have those figures at my fingertips, but I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have them.

If she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the 2005 targets for making Government information and services available electronically. [144198]

Yesterday, I laid before the House the latest report on progress towards the target that by 2005 all Government service; should be online. The report shows that for the whole of central Government, 42 per cent. of those services are now online, which is well in excess of the interim target of having 25 per cent. of Government services online by 2002.

Dots my hon. Friend agree that wider provision of e-information and e-services by Government is only one side of the coin, and that the other is having more people gaining e-access? Does he recognise the potential of digital television, and will he and his colleagues ensure that the Government put it to the test in technology pilots?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Digital television will indeed play a major part in access to Government services, both for information and for doing business. The technology has only recently become commercially available, but the Government are working with the industry. We have already issued interim framework policy guidelines for digital television, and there are several pilot projects in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. Over time, digital television will allow people to do business with local and central Government from their own home.

I am interested in the Minister's comments about digital television, because according to the Government's own report, of the 521 Government services projected to be delivered in 2005, only six will be delivered through interactive television. Chasing Government targets is like searching for a mirage, because the structure of the reports has entirely changed; so will he help me? A year ago, the Government's progress report said that at the end of 1999 capability for electronic service delivery was 36 per cent.; now, the Government say that 42 per cent. has been achieved, which represents a peat triumph in the intervening year. Will he explain that apparent lack of progress and tell us how much take-up has increased on last year's figure of 17 per cent? [Interruption.]

Order. There is far too much conversation in the Chamber. The House must come to order before the Minister replies.

Those comments are a bit rich coming from a member of a party whose Government did nothing about e-commerce or e-technology during their 18 years in office. In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), I stated quite clearly that we are ahead of the schedule. We have advanced the target from 2008 to 2005 and extended the 2002 target from 25 per cent. to 42 per cent. In addition, in the first few weeks after the introduction of UK Online, 5 million citizens used it to access services—the equivalent of the population of Scotland. That is not a bad start, given that we were at zero when we took over from the previous Government.

The decibel level rises the more the Minister is in trouble. Let me ask him to consider quality. The Inland Revenue has introduced online self-assessment tax returns, and I estimate that there are about 12,000 visitors a day to the website, but only 26,000 returns have been filed in the past six months. What proportion of those who access the Inland Revenue website successfully file a return electronically—what is the take-up?

The hon. Gentleman tries to use a fog of statistics. Let us be absolutely clear. For example, MAFF—

Spit it out!

The hon. Gentleman might want to spit, but I am a rather more sophisticated individual than he is and I like to put my brain in gear before using my mouth.

I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not answered a single question. Let me ask him once more: if take-up was 17 per cent. a year ago, what is it now? If capability was 36 per cent a year ago, why is it only 42 per cent. now? What about cost? There is no re-engineering of government going on in all that, only an extension of capability to internet or digital television. How much will the programme cost, and what benefit in terms of savings will accrue?

The hon. Gentleman has changed tack again. The fact is that we are ahead of target in terms of the use of the internet and putting transactions in place; we are ahead of target in access to information and in sorting out the problems created by the previous Government. We have a multimillion-pound programme of investment in modernising the public sector and Government. The Conservatives' £16 billion cuts in public services would undermine what we are doing to modernise Government. [Interruption.]

Order. I say again to hon. Members that the House is far too noisy, which is unfair to those who have asked a question and want to hear the answer.

When she expects to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman review. [144200]

This major review has elicited 250 responses. The Government are looking in great detail at these responses and the evaluation of them will be announced before Easter.

I am grateful for that answer. My hon. Friend will know that we had the ombudsman review because ombudsmen came to the Government and said, "Our work is being impeded, particularly where the boundaries cross health and social services, for example, because we cannot run a seamless, integrated service." The Government are to be congratulated on initiating the review, but will they now give a commitment to bringing forward early legislation to implement it?

As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot pre-empt decisions on the next legislative programme. I agree that an extremely important review is taking place. The ombudsmen told us that they were not working as efficiently and effectively as they could. We accepted that, and that is why the review is taking place.

I shall raise an issue that relates both to the Cabinet Office's responsibility for the future of the ombudsmen and to the co-ordination of rural policy. Is the Minister aware that there is real resentment and frustration among farmers in England and Wales at the fact that there is no effective external and independent arbiter of maladministration and mismanagement of many issues within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, while there is one in Scotland? How soon will the Minister's proposals for introducing a more effective tribunal be available for us to see? Will they cover issues other than the integrated administration and control system concerns?

The hon. Gentleman is extending the review to areas that are not covered by the question. It is clear that people in rural areas as well as in urban areas benefit from the service of the ombudsmen. Improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of that service will help people in rural areas.

How many people are employed in her Department; and if she will make a statement on the equivalent figure in April 1997. [144202]

The number of people employed in my Department, including agencies, on 1 April 2000 was 2,040 and on 1 April 1997, 2,623: a difference of 583.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that response. Given the overall figures for the civil service, there has been an increase of about 15,000 in one year. Does she not think it rather a perverse sense of priorities on the part of the Government that they find it easy to recruit new bureaucrats to deal with red tape and the propaganda machine, including special advisers, while at the same time reducing the number of policemen? Surely it would be better for the Government to comply with the people's sense of priorities—more police and fewer bureaucrats.

Let us start with the facts. Spending on central administration is down since 1997. The numbers of civil servants are down by 8,000 since 1997. I accept that there has been a small increase this year, and that relates to programmes that we want to put in place, such as pensions increases. We want to deal with fraud, the implementation of child support reforms and immigration cases. That is why there has been an increase in the numbers of civil servants over the past year.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that last year the Public Accounts Committee, in its report "Government on the Web", said that the Cabinet Office did not know how many websites there were or whether they conformed to good practice. Have my right hon. Friend's officials dealt positively with that criticism?

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that they have.

One group of civil servants where there has clearly been a huge increase are the political civil servants, the special advisers. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to match the Conservative pledge to reduce the number of special advisers to their far more modest level when the Government took office in 1997?

I partly answered that question in reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). No, we will not. We have never denied that we want special advisers to assist us in the volume of legislation that we are putting through. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he does not want the civil service to be politicised, special advisers perform an important role. As the head of the civil service, Sir Richard Wilson, said, to suggest that 73 special advisers will swamp 3,000 high-level civil servants is a myth.

What discussions she has had with business people on the impact of Government regulation. [144203]

My hon. Friends and I have regular meetings with all sections of business. Yesterday, I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and talked to representatives of its chamber of commerce and a number of businesses. Last week, I attended a debate organised by the Social Market Foundation with the chief executive of the British Chambers of Commerce.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's approach to dialogue with trade unions and business, as manifested in the setting up of the Low Pay Commission, is the best way of building consensus and driving forward social change? Will my hon. Friend consider setting up a similar body to drive through and monitor the recommendations that will follow the consultation on the Government's Green Paper on working parents, so that we can further improve the lot of workers?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is no doubt that the Low Pay Commission has been successful in improving the pay and working conditions of many British people. I hear what my hon. Friend says and we shall consider that point.

How many of the 100,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the past 12 months does the Minister ascribe to the increase in the regulatory burden under this Government?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that figure is considerably less than the number of jobs lost every year in the industrial sector under the Conservative Government. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consider Britain's regulatory performance as against that of comparable countries, he can look to the report of The Economist Intelligence Unit, which found that, taking into account 70 different factors, among comparable countries Britain was the best placed for foreign investment.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, with the regulatory reform legislation going through the other place, it is the Government's objective to get rid of unnecessary and unhelpful regulation and move increasingly to good and positive regulation which will help British industry and people?

My hon. Friend is right. We shall not repeat some of the simplistic and asinine comments made by the previous Administration who, for example, said that they would burn vast amounts of red tape, yet proceeded to introduce 13 times as many petty regulations as existed before. As my hon. Friend knows, the Regulatory Reform Bill seeks to remove unnecessary red tape, particularly that resulting from overlapping regulatory regimes. We have put before Parliament a number of examples of how that legislation will improve regulations.

What the impact is on the Government secure intranet of the implementation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [144204]

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has had a minor impact on the Government secure intranet. The lawful business practice regulations—the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000—authorise interception of communications in certain cases that would otherwise be prohibited by section 1 of the Act. Where such cases apply to the Government secure intranet, obligations under relevant laws will, of course, be met.

This is obviously a complex technical issue. If the Minister does not have the facts at his fingertips, will he undertake to write to me about certain aspects of the implementation of the Act? First, what is the Government's policy on retaining data on the GSI to comply with requests from the law enforcement agencies? Secondly, what is their policy on intercepting e-mails from their employees in the Departments that use the GSI? Finally, what are their estimates of the costs to the GSI of complying with requests from the law enforcement agencies?

As the hon. Gentleman said, those are highly detailed and technical questions, and I am happy to write to him on those issues.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 January.

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.

Among my right hon. Friend's bedtime reading last night, did he happen to notice an article in the Kettering Evening Telegraph reporting a 9.5 per cent. cut in crime in Northamptonshire last year? Will he join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police and the wider community on that tremendous achievement?

Unaccountably, the Kettering Evening Telegraph was not among my bedtime reading. However, I know officers and civilian staff of the Northamptonshire police and would like to congratulate them on achieving a 9.5 per cent. cut in crime. Of course, we know that there are still real problems with both violent crime and police recruitment, which need to be addressed. However, I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that, as a result of the extra investment that the Government are putting in over the next three years, there will be an additional 90 recruits for the police service in Northamptonshire.

The Prime Minister has already commented on the deeply disturbing case that has come to attention this week involving baby twins being bought and sold over the internet. It cannot be right for children to be sold to the highest bidder. The Prime Minister will obviously want to co-operate as much as possible with other countries to prevent any more such cases and to ensure that laws against baby trading are as tight as possible.

I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about that particular case. I think that everyone feels that it is deplorable that children are traded in that way. Adoption should always be about putting the interests of the child first.

I acknowledge and welcome what the Prime Minister has said, especially about introducing legislation in this Session. The White Paper to which he referred received a warm welcome from the Opposition. If, for any reason, it proves impossible for the Government to introduce their own legislation in the coming weeks, will they consider the vehicle provided by the Adoption Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? The Bill has its First Reading today, has had the support of hon. Members from all parties and could thereby contain the proposals of Government and Opposition.

I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions about that Bill. I am told, however, that some of the measures that it contains do not require legislation, so we can press ahead with them in any event if they are the right measures to introduce.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the miners? Is he aware of the huge backlog of claims in the East Kent coalfield, which is often forgotten? Has he heard the sad stories of my constituents Jon Phelan, Norman Woodcock and Arthur Bailes, who are very old and sick and feel let down by the current slow and complex process of claims assessment?

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for many people—not only his constituents, but people in every part of the country that has had a large mining presence, my constituency included. As he knows, the difficulty is that this is the largest personal litigation in United Kingdom history. Some 130,000 claims for respiratory disease alone have to be processed, and each one of them must be processed individually. We are trying to speed up the rate of paying out. In December, for example, £22 million of compensation was paid out. The fast-track procedures that we announced last September have resulted in the paying out of a further £74 million. It is only because of the Government that the money is being paid out at all. However, we accept our obligation to ensure that the claims are processed more quickly and are looking urgently at doing that. It is important for people to realise that the delays are occurring because each claim must, by law, be processed individually.

I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge that although people in rural communities may, like all the political parties, have different views about hunting, one thing on which they all agree is that they can see post offices closing, public transport disappearing and farm incomes plummeting. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his Administration has failed rural Britain?

No, I do not acknowledge that. Of course there is a real problem with rural post offices, which is why we are committed to putting in the investment and to working with them to ensure that they have a future. As for investment in public services, it is this Government who are putting in the investment: we are putting far more investment into rural areas than the right hon. Gentleman asked us to before the general election.

But only last year, the Government published an action plan for farming and followed it up with a rural White Paper, yet the post offices are disappearing, public transport is receding and farm incomes are falling. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, having promised rural Britain, like everyone else in the country, that things can only get better, the truth for rural Britain is that things have only got worse?

Rural post offices have been closing for many years. There are reasons for that, which we are addressing. The matter can be addressed only in the way that we are doing it, by giving the rural post offices options for the future. That is precisely what we are doing. As for public service investment, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at primary school results, investment in primary schools in rural areas, the investment now going into the national health service and the money made available specifically for police officers in rural areas, he will see that all those elements are rising and all of that investment is going in.

Does the Prime Minister share my anger about the whopping 43p in every hard-earned taxpayer's pound that went on the cost of rising debt and unemployment in 1997? Will he remind the House of the Government's actions to cut that waste and the way in which the 26p freed by them is being put to much better use?

My hon. Friend is right: 43p in every pound went on social security payments or debt repayments, and that sum is now down to 17p as a result of Government measures. Today, we have the lowest inflation in Europe, our interest rates are half what they were in the Conservative years, and we have cut the national debt that the previous Government incurred. It will be interesting to note how many questions the Opposition ask on the economy in the rest of Question Time today.

Over the past few months, the firemen and women in this country have risked their lives helping victims of flooding, not least in Cornwall in the past 24 hours. I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating them on that work. Is he aware that the current funding formula for the fire service does not allow for such rescue work and that, consequently, many fire officers have had to tackle flooding problems without appropriate equipment, uniforms and clothing for those wet conditions? Is not it time that the Government changed the way in which the fire service is funded so that those fire officers can have the equipment that they need as they risk their lives on behalf of people in the circumstances that I described?

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating firefighters and other emergency service workers on their excellent work in the past few weeks. We are reviewing the operation of the funding and the attached funding formula. However, let me make two other points.

If he will discuss with the President of the Seychelles the return of Ibis people to the land of their ancestral graves, when he next visits the Seychelles.

I know that my hon. Friend has a long association with this subject that goes back some 30 years. Indeed, he recently secured a debate on it in Westminster Hall. Unfortunately, I have no immediate plans to visit the Seychelles. However, as he knows, a team of independent consultants is currently assessing the feasibility of resettlement of the outer islands of the territory. We await its conclusions.

Against the background of that hour-long Westminster Hall Adjournment debate, how about establishing an Anglo-American tribunal on compensation?

This is where the briefing runs out, so I shall have to get back to my hon. Friend on that. However, as he knows—probably better than I do—a High Court case is currently examining whether resettlement is possible. Two ex gratia payments of some £4 million were made to specific people for resettlement, most recently in 1982.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of paragraph 113 of the ministerial code of conduct.

My position on the ministerial code was set out in the Government's response to the Neill committee's sixth report, which was published in July.

The Prime Minister knows that his ministerial code is his responsibility alone. It has nothing to do with the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Does he recall writing the foreword to the code? It stated:

I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the code.

Care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest …

Ministers should receive no remuneration from a union.

I do enforce our rules—and it is relevant to note that the Standards and Privileges Committee dismissed the complaint, and found it to have absolutely no substance.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating schools in the London borough of Merton, one of the five most improved boroughs in the country in terms of school standards? Will he congratulate in particular the children and staff of Malmesbury primary school, who have achieved an improvement of 140 per cent. in the past five years? Does he agree, however, that there is still much to be done, especially in high schools? Will he give the House a commitment that a future Labour Government will concentrate on improving standards in such schools?

Funding has increased by some £450 per pupil over the past few years. In the last three years of Conservative Government, it fell by about £60.

When the Foreign Office Minister responsible for Government policy on missile proliferation says that he is opposed to the development of a ballistic missile defence system, is he speaking for the Government?

We have not said that we are opposed; what we have said—[Interruption.] No. We have said that until a proper proposal is before us, we will not make a detailed comment on it. That is entirely sensible, which is why the right hon. Gentleman's intervention last week was so misjudged.

The Minister responsible is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who said:

I don't like the idea of this programme, limited or unlimited.

we are currently campaigning against American plans to set up a missile defence system.

I have made the Government's position absolutely clear is. When there is a proposal from the United States for national missile defence, we will make our declaration on that proposal. We have not yet received a proposal. It is an extremely sensitive issue, for reasons that are entirely obvious—which is why the right hon. Gentleman's blundering about does no good either to us or to our relationship with the United States.

Is it clear, then, that if the Minister says that the Government are not in favour of the idea, he is not speaking for the Government?

I have already said that we have not actually received a proposal on national missile defence. I personally said earlier, in exchanges not with the right hon. Gentleman but with others, that we entirely understand America's reasons for wishing to develop the system; but until there is a proposal, it would be rather foolish to say how we react to that proposal. All that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do—joined by others on the Opposition Front Bench—is create mischief between ourselves and the United States. That is foolish and wrong, but fortunately it will get him nowhere.

For all that wriggling, it is still not clear whether the Minister speaks for the Government in the world, or for CND within the Government. The Prime Minister has not been able to clear that up. Will he accept that if he makes the country's position clear now, we shall be able to reassure our ally, shape the system that will eventually be created, and take a lead in NATO?

In other words, before we receive the request, we should respond to it. That is the right hon. Gentleman's latest foreign policy announcement. It is so ridiculous. It would be a good idea if he paid some attention to the words of President-elect Bush just a few days ago on 8 January. He said that it was an issue that had to be handled with very great care and he was listening to what people were saying. That is an intelligent response from our ally, the United States of America. That is precisely what we will do. When there is a detailed request, we will make our response to it. That is the intelligent way to proceed. An unintelligent and foolish way to proceed is to say that, whatever request may be made to us, we will accede to it before it is even made.

More.

Order. I call David Lammy.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my sorrow and would wish to send his condolences to the parents of Anna Climbie. May I seek his assurance that he will scrutinise and implement the recommendations of Lord Laming's inquiry in due course?

I think that the whole House knows that it was a needless and dreadful tragedy in wholly unimaginable circumstances. This poor little girl was murdered by people who were supposed to be caring for her, but the fact is that she was let down by the system as well. The statutory inquiry that we have announced under the chairmanship of Lord Laming will get to the bottom of what went wrong. It will make a full report to us, which we will scrutinise very carefully. I am sure that we will act on the recommendations that the inquiry makes to us. It is a terrible case. Again, I am afraid, we have to try to learn the lessons of how the system let down that poor innocent and helpless child.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Hillingdon community health council and Harrow CHC have both formally objected to the proposed closure of the world famous Harefield hospital? Is that example of independent thinking why he wants to abolish CHCs?

No, it is not. It is correct that the health authority made some proposals on the future of Harefield hospital at the end of last year. Those proposals may be subject to referral to Ministers for a decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any final decision will be made in the interests of the local community.

I welcome the Government's commitment to neighbourhood renewal. My local authority is in discussions with a private developer that will lever in some £400 million of development on an integrated transport system. However, that depends on a link road to the M6, which borders the Pemberton area in my constituency, the 172nd most deprived area in the country. Will he do all he can to ensure that the Government office for the north-west, the Highways Agency and other Departments and agencies work with the local authority and the private developer to lever in the money and ensure that the scheme is an important part of redeveloping the neighbourhood and former coalfield community?

I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. We will work with the Highways Agency, the north-west regional office and others to do our very best to get that private investment. It is all part of a series of proposals that will regenerate our inner cities. Again, it is an example of money that will be invested in some of the most deprived communities in the country. Again, it is an example of investment that we are putting in that would be taken out by the Conservative party.

People laughed when I first raised the potential devastation that would result from tai impact between an asteroid and the earth. There is no middle way with asteroids. In the light of that and of the Government's near-earth object task force report, which confirmed every claim that I had made about the dangers and made 14 recommendations for action, will the Prime Minister consider raising the matter, with the prospect for international co-operation, at the next G8 summit?

The report of the task force on near-earth objects and asteroids was published last September, and the Government and considering it. We shall announce our response to it shortly. The Department of Trade and Industry has established a small implementation team to oversee the preparation of that response, which I am sure will be eagerly awaited on both sides of the House.

May I take my right hon. Friend back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on miners' compensation? I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the legal side of the matter, and we know that the process is rather cumbersome and long. Unfortunately, however, we have many old miners who were assessed at least two years ago but are dying before they see a penny of compensation. Will he intervene and see if we can create a fast-track process to get that money to those old miners and their widows?

The frustration that my hon. Friend expresses is absolutely right, and I share it. Indeed, some people in my own constituency are in exactly the same position. That is why, from last September, we introduced, as far as we were able, a fast-track scheme. The problem is that it is impossible—I assure him that I have looked into it myself on many occasions—entirely to short-circuit the point that I made earlier, which is that there has to be an individual assessment in each individual claim. There are literally more than 130,000 claims simply for respiratory illness. Some of those claims will be entirely valid, but some may not be. As we are talking about paying out very large sums of taxpayers' money, it is essential that we look into the matter in detail.

If the Prime Minister is in favour of completing the various tasks that he set himself for this Parliament, why is he not in favour of fixed-term Parliaments?

Because I share the view of many of those who have occupied this position before me that that is not the right thing.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to plans for a new community hospital on the site of the Nelson hospital in my constituency, which will provide a focus for primary and secondary care and for the integration of health and social services? Such innovative projects are possible only because of the money that the Labour Government are putting into the health service. Would not hopes for the realisation of such important projects be dashed if the Conservatives were ever again to take power?

You will be out.

My hon. Friend is right in the sense both that we are putting extra investment into the health service and that Conservative Members have refused to commit themselves to matching our additional funding for social services, which are a vital part of achieving improvements in the national health service. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) keeps shouting across to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) that he will be out at the next general election, but we will just see. [Interruption.]

Will the Prime Minister clarify why he misled the audience on "Question Time" last year, when he told them that he had voted for the Foster Bill, which he had not, and that it had been lost in the House of Lords, which it had not? In view of his lamentable attendance record in the House, will he tell us how he will vote today, and why?

I have made it quite clear, and my position has not changed. I am opposed to fox hunting for the reasons that I have given on many occasions. As for what I said on "Question Time", we shall wait and see exactly what happens in the other place. However, I think that it is absolutely certain that the will of this place will be made very clear.

Does the Prime Minister agree that in this, the Year of the Volunteer, the Government should follow the excellent example of the Scottish Parliament and remove the £10 fee that volunteers for voluntary youth organisations must pay?

I suppose that that is another spending commitment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Government are doing a lot for volunteering, as the hon. Gentleman knows. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a package of measures on volunteering last week that was widely welcomed. We want to encourage people to volunteer, but Liberal Democrat Members must recognise that there comes a point when there is a limit to how much taxpayers' money one can spend. In particular, instead of telling us how much more public money they are going to spend, they must tell us how they are going to fund that public money.

The editor of the Newham Recorder, Mr. Tom Duncan, is much respected in the east end of London. In this morning's edition of the newspaper, he welcomed the launch earlier this week of the Government's neighbourhood renewal project. However, he criticised the Conservative party for its consistent failure to give leadership since the east end began to be regenerated. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the resources allocated to the project will be adequate to see the job finished this time?

The job will, of course, take a very long time indeed, but the resources will be put into it. Those resources are going into inner cities up and down the country for the simple reason that this Government and this political party believe in prosperity being spread to every part of our country. We also believe that no one should be shut out and excluded from our society. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout as much as they like, but they wrote off our country's inner cities, just as they wrote off the mining communities. This Government are bringing prosperity to those areas, so that every one of our citizens gets the chance to succeed.