If she will make it her policy that all Government Departments and agencies make use of constituents' postcodes in correspondence with hon. Members and others. [148766]

It is general practice for constituents' full addresses, including the postal code, to be included in ministerial replies to Members of Parliament. It is not, however, in the guide to Departments issued by the Cabinet Office for replies to MPs' letters.

It is not my experience that the postcode is included. If a constituent writes to me from the S45 postcode area, complaining about the loss of 700 jobs at Biwater in Clay Cross, I forward that to the Department of Trade and Industry, seeking a response. Normally, however, the reply from a Department gives the full name and address but not the postcode details. It is administratively convenient to give the postcode details. I hope that that will be put in place. I would much sooner have the jobs, but will settle, on this occasion, for the postcode details.

I take my hon. Friend's point. When we re-issue the guide to Ministers replying to letters sent to Members of Parliament, we shall include the point that postal codes should be included.

Will the hon. Gentleman examine not only the postcode issue but an extraordinary development that has taken place since the last election? MPs' letters are often replied to at their constituency office. I regard in my work as a Member of Parliament as separate from my work as a Conservative based in the constituency office. To an extraordinary extent, more and more letters are returned to the constituency office, not to the House of Commons. I regard the roles as a little different.

I shall certainly look into the point that the right hon. Lady raises. My expectation is that letters are returned to the Member of Parliament at the address that was on the original letter. However, if that is not the case, I shall look into the matter and ensure that it is considered when the next guide is issued.

If she will make a statement on preparations for the Commonwealth games. [148768]

I am pleased to say that Manchester 2002 is on target with plans and preparations to host the biggest sporting and cultural celebration ever held in the United Kingdom.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As a proud Yorkshireman, it is rare for me to wish any event in Manchester well. On this occasion, however, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to ensure that the games, which will occur in jubilee year, are promoted not just in the north-west but throughout the United Kingdom, so that they will be as inspirational for our sportsmen, sportswomen and youngsters as the Sydney Olympics were in Australia?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an international event—a window of opportunity for the United Kingdom—based in the city of Manchester. I am delighted to say that, across the country, Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are fully behind this project.

The Minister will be aware that there is concern that the high-speed rail link to the games may not be completed in time. Along with Members on both sides of the House, I hope that it will be. What steps have been taken to ensure that the rail link is completed on schedule?

I think that the hon. Gentleman may be mixing up the transport infrastructure for the Commonwealth games with the proposal for the extension throughout Manchester of the metro system. The metro system is not part of the transport infrastructure for the games, and never has been. [Interruption.] I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. In terms of getting to the games and getting around the city of Manchester, discussions are taking place with all the transport partnerships, including the buses and trains. There will be a separate, clear transport infrastructure strategy to ensure that not only is there access to the games from outside Manchester and the north-west but that people in Manchester have fast and easy access to and from all the venues. In addition, we hope to have a ticketing arrangement that includes transport costs. That will make it easier for people to buy a ticket, get on a tram or bus and go to and from the games.

If she will make a statement on the effectiveness of drug arrest referral schemes. [148769]

There is clear evidence that arrest referral schemes work. For example, in Barnsley, the custody sergeant's promotion of the scheme has helped to accelerate take-up, and drug users not previously in touch with services are being reached. There has been a steady increase in the number of people seen for initial assessment, and a high rate of those attending for drug treatment. Areas where referrals have been working longer show significant reductions in the amount spent on illegal drugs, and drug-related crime has been reduced by as much as 80 per cent.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I thank her for her recent visit to Barnsley, when she was able to hold discussions with the chief executive of Barnsley metropolitan borough council, the co-ordinator of the community partnership and the vice-chair of DAT—the Drug Action Team—Barnsley's drug strategy. From those talks, she will be aware that the drugs referral system is vital in getting young offenders who are on drugs into treatment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to strengthen the community support services after treatment? Will she look into how resources might be focused on improving that service to complement the referral system?

I certainly recognise what my hon. Friend says—helping young people stay off drugs and giving them support once they have finished treatment is crucial. The best approach to ensuring that that care is provided is to make certain that the partnership that developed during the arrest referral continues afterwards. I hope that system is working in Barnsley; as my hon. Friend pointed out, I heard about it while I was there.

How soon does the Minister expect that drug arrest referral schemes will have an effect on reducing drug-related crime nationally? Does she agree that, unless the early release of 3,000 drug dealers is halted forthwith, Government targets will be seriously jeopardised?

As I have just said, where the schemes are working, there is already a real decrease in crime. Arrest referral schemes are being rolled out across the country at present and, by the end of this year-definitely by next year—we hope that most areas will have them. The schemes bring results.

What about early release?

That is a matter for the Home Office. It is important that when people are in prison we give them help to ensure that they come off drugs. Whatever the reason for them being in prison—whether they are dealers or people caught using drugs—the best course is to get them off drugs so that when they get out, they do not continue with the same behaviour.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that those who enter drug treatment programmes through the judicial system might displace those who do not do so? If that is true, it could send out dangerous signals.

Let me assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case. In areas where demand is high or fluctuating, adequate treatment—whether inside or outside the judicial system—is not always available. The national treatment agency that will be set up with £145 million will provide the additional treatment needed. That is being rolled out at present. Local drug teams are putting in their requests, so where there are problems—I readily acknowledge the problems—they will be dealt with.

What recent discussions she has had with her colleagues in other Departments on the co-ordination of rural development. [148770]

I chair the ministerial rural affairs group, which provides a forum for discussions with colleagues on rural development and other issues.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but what has happened since the establishment of the Cabinet Committee on rural affairs? How often has it met? Does it recognise that there is an urgent crisis in rural areas? What action is it taking with other Departments to address the fact that small family farms are going out of business in their droves? After all, they are the bedrock of rural life in this country and they deserve better treatment. How is the Cabinet Committee addressing that issue?

The ministerial rural affairs group is co-ordinating rural policy and rural proofing to ensure that Departments consider the impact of their policies on rural areas, that the policies work as effectively as possible to support rural life, and that a joined-up approach is taken to tackle the problems faced by rural communities. The hon. Gentleman refers specifically to small farms. We have put £1.6 billion into the English rural development programme, which will provide vital support to help farmers to play a role in diversifying their production in the economy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the initiatives on farms from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on village post offices from the Department of Trade and Industry have played an important part in assisting rural regeneration, local authorities are the principal agents of joined-up government in rural areas? Will she evaluate whether this year's well above inflation settlements for local authorities have gone a long way to improve the co-ordination of service; in rural areas?

The additional funding for local authorities will help co-ordination and delivery in rural and urban areas and is a welcome development, so efforts are already being made in relation to rural areas. We have put an extra £239 million into transport, with an extra £15 million in parish funds for community-based solutions. Alongside the £37 million in extra funding for market town regeneration, that shows that we are making noticeable progress. It should be compared with the Tory party's record in government, when 30,000 post offices were closed, one in four parishes were without a bus service and 30 village schools close d each year. I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) bears that in mind before he asks his question.

Is it not a fact that the only real rural co-ordination going on at the moment is the massive co-ordination for the even more massive march that will be held on 18 March to protest about the way in which the Government keep attacking the rural way of life and neglect totally the problems of the countryside?

If the hon. Gentleman's party had not neglected rural areas when in power, the anger would not be so great. We inherited one in four parishes with no transport; 3,000 schools closing; a transport system that was not working; and village schools that were closing. In comparison, we have put money into transport and given a 50 per cent. rate relief to village shops, pubs and garages—which are crucial to communities—and £40 million extra to support small schools, and there is an affordable house scheme. We are concerned about rural areas and we are making a difference. Yes, people are unhappy because we are having to make a lot of progress very quickly, given what we inherited from the Conservative party.

My constituency has rural areas to the north and west. What is the Government's commitment to rural Britain after years of neglect?

I have talked about rate relief for village shops and the money for transport and schools, but, at the same time, we are encouraging housebuilding on brownfield sites, which is terribly important if we are to have a sustainable policy to keep the green belt alive. We have saved a lot of green belt with our emphasis on building on brownfield sites. We have an area of greenbelt land the size of Bristol. All that we need to do is compare that with what the Opposition did when in government.

Has the rural affairs committee focused in its discussions on the issue of farm incomes? I am sure that the Minister will agree that many rural areas have been very hard hit by the fall in farm incomes by three quarters, so will the Government claim the agrimonetary compensation that will be available before 30 April—yes or no?

It is common practice not to discuss the detail of a Cabinet Committee's discussions, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we cover the whole waterfront in terms of rural policy. Since 1997, we have provided an extra £1 billion to help the farming industry through difficult times and, now, an additional £1.6 billion for the English rural development programme will provide vital support to help farming play a greater role in the diverse economies in rural areas.

Does it matter?

I do not think that it does.

The Minister must know from her discussions across the waterfront that farmers have been hard hit. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made it clear that this is the worst agricultural recession for many years, and farm incomes are at their lowest in real terms since the 1930s. If ever there were a moment to use the resources that can be claimed from the European Community, it is now and £200 million is available before 30 April. Farmers know that the Conservatives, should we form a Government before 30 April—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, and farmers know that the Conservatives will make that £200 million available. Will the Government do that£yes or no?

Farmers know that we have been helpful since 1997 and should compare our record with what happened before. In Europe, we are doing all that we can to help farmers to obtain the benefits that Europe offers. The Conservatives promise that the agrimonetary payments will be claimed but, if I were a farmer, I would consider how many agrimonetary payments they obtained when they were in government. The answer is none.

What new initiatives and resources are planned in the campaign against drug usage by younger adolescents. [148771]

As the Government announced this morning, we are putting £152 million over three years into co-ordinating and targeting local services to help young people, including those most vulnerable from drug misuse.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I commend to him the work in Leicestershire schools of the life education centres, whose drug prevention education helps many thousands of children make healthy choices? Will he discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment ways of sustaining and developing the LECs, particularly in the use of digital technology, to make their programmes more effective with pupils, teachers and parents?

Yes. I am also prepared to come to Leicestershire to hold discussions with my hon. Friend and his colleagues there about how we can build on the work that is already being done in the county to prevent addiction but, when it does, to provide proper treatment. We shall also help to relieve communities in Leicestershire from the stress that drug dealers cause in some of them.

Is it—[Interruption.] It is always a pleasure to brighten up the lives of miserable Labour Members who are about to lose their seats.

Order. I ask the House to settle down; there are too many private conversations.

The issue is not about saving seats; it is about saving lives. Perhaps I can draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to that. The schemes are working effectively. They encourage young people who have a drug abuse problem to take responsibility for seeking out a partnership with the local authority to receive available treatment and to address the issues that arise from the criminal activity related to their misuse of drugs.

May I invite my right hon. Friend to visit Halifax to meet some of the dedicated workers who are employed in drug referral and prevention strategies? Will he join me in condemning the proposals by Tory-controlled Calderdale council to cut staff in that vital service?

First, I would be more than happy to visit my hon. Friend's constituency. Secondly, a year or so ago I went to her local authority to discuss drug issues on estates. I would be staggered if any local authority decided to reduce funding in such a vital service when the Government have put in place a £1 billion investment programme to prevent drug abuse, provide treatment, encourage community safety and reduce the availability of drugs in communities. There is no reason why her local authority should not be involved in a strategy to ensure that the system in her community works effectively to get young people off drugs and into a more proactive life style.

If she will make a statement on her role in achieving better regulation by Government Departments. [148772]

My right hon. Friend the Minister chairs the panel for regulatory accountability. Yesterday, the Regulatory Reform Bill completed its Report stage in the other place.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Government continue to gold-plate European Union directives, the most recent of which were on HACCP—hazard analysis and critical control points—and on meat hygiene inspection? Members of Unison have been consulted and are up in arms at the prescriptive nature of the conditions that will be imposed on United Kingdom producers but that would not have to be met by our EU competitors.

Most of the complaints that I receive about gold-plating come from the time when the Conservative party was in government. The Cabinet Office, under my noble Friend Lord Falconer, has issued new guidelines on the transposition of European legislation.

Would my hon. Friend consider better regulation of the steel industry by Departments in view of Corus's decision not to allow the workers to buy out Llanwem steel works because it would produce competition? According to Sir Brian Moffatt, it is better to get rid of manufacturing at Llanwern and Ebbw Vale than allow competition. Does he agree that no one should treat, or be allowed to treat, their work force in that way?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the possible loss of jobs in the steel industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is still in discussions about those jobs.

If she will make a statement on her Department's role in co-ordinating the information relating to health in the Government's annual report. [148776]

rose—

rose—

The Government's annual report was produced by the strategic communications unit in the Prime Minister's office. Chapters on each section were written in collaboration with advisers from No. 10 and the relevant Departments. [Interruption.]

Order. We cannot hear the right hon. Lady.

Shall I read the answer again?

Yes.

The Government's annual report was produced by the strategic communications unit in the Prime Minister's office. Chapters o r each section were written in collaboration with advisers from No. 10 and the relevant Departments.

What a shambles of Government.

In terms of staff, the hon. Gentleman well knows that we are already recruiting more nurses and training more doctors. The situation is improving day by day. If he listened to the facts, he would not have to ask the question.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 February.

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 join me in congratulating Age Concern, which today has published its manifesto for older people? Will he note that, on page 6, it makes a splendid case for increasing and improving the state pension, as the best way of avoiding the indignity of means-testing our oldest and poorest people? Will he give a commitment that the Labour Government will always protect the value of the state pension, rather than let it be whittled away in the disgraceful manner that the Tories allowed?

Certainly. There is the £200 winter allowance that has been given to pensioners, there are free television licences for pensioners over 75, and there are free eye tests. This year, there are the increases of £5 and £8, which are meant to be increased even further next year. These increases are greater than those that would be linked to earnings. These are substantial sums for British pensioners, and deservedly so. We shall have spent more money on pensions during this Parliament than if the pension had been linked to earnings. Pensioners can know with absolute certainty that the money comes to them under the Labour Government and would be taken from them under the Conservatives.

Today, people have travelled from throughout the country to lobby the House in opposition to the Prime Minister's policy of abolishing community health councils. When I last asked him about the matter, he said that he would consult on the proposals and listen to the representations made. How many representations has he received in favour of his policy?

We have made it clear that we are consulting on the community health councils. Our proposals involve replacing the councils not with nothing, but with patients forums in each hospital and each local general practitioner's premises. There is widespread concern about whether CHCs have performed properly the function of looking after patients' interests. However, we continue to listen to the representations made, and we shall announce our final proposals in due course.

As the Prime Minister was happy to quote Age Concern a moment ago, has he listened to Help the Aged, which says that the Government's policy

"is likely to lead to confusion and lack of clout in addressing the…representation of patients"?

I said that we would listen carefully to people and, indeed, we shall. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait much longer for the answer. As he is quoting those organisations on our health proposals, he should also quote them in support of the massive extra investment that the Government are making in the national health service—the extra nurses, doctors and hospitals—and on the contrast between the investment going into the health service under this Government and the cuts that there would be under the right hon. Gentleman's.

It is no good the Prime Minister wriggling off the point because he does not know the answers to the questions. What about the following representation, with which he should be familiar? It says:

"there has been no consultation".

"cynical attempt to silence any negative publicity".

"to deflect attention from…shortcomings"

I think that the right hon. Gentleman's comments may look a little foolish when the results of the consultation are announced, if I may respectfully say so. As this is about the only health service subject that he dare raise—he knows that he has nothing to say about anything else—it is correct that there have been many representations on community health councils, and it is for that reason that we said we would listen to them.

Does the Prime Minister remember the snarl-ups that we used have in the Chamber on the minimum wage and the bogus arguments threatening a cataclysmic loss of jobs? Is he aware that, at that time, one in every five workers in South Yorkshire were earning less than £3.50 an hour? They are now between £30 and £40 a week better off; and unemployment has halved. Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the Opposition have changed their mind about that policy?

I am proud that the Government introduced a statutory minimum wage which has helped hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers in this country out of poverty. Some said that it would increase unemployment. In fact, today we have the lowest unemployment in the country for over 25 years; we have the lowest inflation in Europe; national debt is down; interest rates—and therefore mortgages—are half what they were in the Conservative years. We can, and do, have both economic efficiency and social justice.

On 13 December last year, the Deputy Prime Minister advised the House that he anticipated that rail services would be back to normal by Easter, having earlier said that they would be back to normal by January. Given the recent reports that the Office of the Rail Regulator now estimates that rail services will not, in any way, be back in efficient running order before the summer, does the Prime Minister still confirm the earlier statement of the Deputy Prime Minister?

It is our understanding that rail services will be back to normal by Easter, but of course that depends on Railtrack and the companies carrying out the work that they have agreed, which is precisely why we will carry on putting pressure on them to do so. There is no doubt that for many passengers still, particularly on the inter-city lines, the situation is simply unacceptable. The only way that we will cure the problem long term is to make sure that we have proper strategic control of our rail industry, given tip under privatisation by the Conservatives, and that we put the urgently needed investment into our railways.

We want safe, reliable, affordable rail services. In that case, should not the Government's strategic approach be, first, to reduce the ridiculous number of train operators, and secondly, to turn Railtrack into a non-profit-making organisation? If the Government did that, they would demonstrate that they put passenger safety before Railtrack's commercial profits.

There is, as we know, a strong case for better securing passenger safety. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by a not-for-profit organisation, but it is vital that we get strategic control, which is what the Strategic Rail Authority will do. Secondly, and perhaps above all, we need to make good the investment in our railways.

Can my right hon. Friend be persuaded that winter fuel payments for pensioners and free TV licences for those aged 75 and over are complicated when pensioners want simplicity, and patronising when pensioners want respect, and that they should be abolished—in which case he agrees with what the leader of the Conservative party was saying at the beginning of last week? Or does my right hon. Friend believe that many pensioners are happy to receive winter fuel payments and free TV licences, and that they should be maintained—in which he agrees with what the leader of the Conservative party was saying at the end of the week?

My right hon. Friend, as ever, makes his point extremely well. The complications involved in trying to organise the system along the lines suggested by the Conservative party would be appalling in terms of bureaucracy, red tape acid so on. The basic point is that the £200 winter allowance is popular and it is right. The free TV licences for those over 75 are popular and right. The rise in the basic state pension coming in this April is, again, the right thing to do. We will carry on standing up for the proper interests of British pensioners.

This time last week, the Prime Minister promised that if he were re-elected, he would hold a referendum on the question of scrapping the pound. That comment was well noted in Wiltshire, where people do riot like it at all. Does the Prime Minister remember promising his friends in the Liberal Democrat party that he would hold a referendum on proportional representation? Will that be within two years?

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the manifesto for all that. On the euro and the good people of Wiltshire, whom I think the hon. Gentleman represents, I believe that what they will like most is the fact that interest rates came down last week. They will like the fact that job numbers are up, living standards are up, and from this March and April, there will be a family tax cut for millions of families which would be taken away by the Conservative party.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction that there is in the north Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire coalfield areas at the announcement of the £60 million subsidy for six pits, which is gratefully received? Is he t ware that, for years, I and many of my colleagues marched under banners calling for "coal not dole", as the Conservatives butchered 270,000 jobs in the industry, in which there are now 20,000 jobs left? The Conservatives got their answer when they were butchered at the last election. Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of us all?

There is now huge investment—hundreds of millions of pounds—going into coalfield communities, not only to preserve those jobs in Britain's mining industry, but to provide hope for areas that have lost their mining industry. I think that that is right and necessary, because it gives us the chance to regenerate these areas. It is one reason why unemployment is so low in this country today.

Is the Prime Minister aware that during the past fortnight in east Kent, more than 100 people have been waiting on trolleys in our three casualty departments? They include a woman of 97 who had to wait for two nights. Is he aware that 80 consultants from the three Kent sites last night voted unanimously for a motion saying that lack of capacity is compromising their ability to deliver health care? Is he still committed to an ill-conceived £100 million reorganisation that will not add a single bed and which was opposed by the local community health council?

Of course it is entirely unacceptable if people are waiting that long on trolleys. The hon. Gentleman and his consultants rightly say that the issue is one of increasing capacity. That is precisely why we have increased capacity and are increasing it year on year. Let me remind him and Opposition Members that they cut 40,000 to 60,000 beds in the national health service. When we came to office, they had cut the number of nursing places and the number of training places for midwives, and they were cutting capital investment in the health service. In all those areas, we are putting the investment in. It will take time, but the one group that has no cause to criticise is the Conservative party.

What plans he has to visit Wimbledon.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

When my right hon. Friend does come to Wimbledon, he will discover that low interest rates are one of the achievements that my constituents most identify with a Labour Government. Home owners are now paying less than £700 a month for an average mortgage, compared with more than £760 a month in 1992 under the Tories. Will he assure the House and my constituents that he will continue with his Government's policies to set a course for economic stability? Nobody in Wimbledon wants to go back to the high and fluctuating interest rates, negative equity and house repossessions that were the legacy of Tory boom and bust. [Interruption.]

Conservative Members seem to think that my hon. Friend's constituents will not be interested in economic stability or low interest rates. I think they will find that they are rather wrong. Of course, the importance of low mortgage rates is that there is nothing better for hard-working families who are pressed to make ends meet than being able to rely on low rates and thus on lower mortgage payments. On average, they are running about £1,000 a year less under this Government than they were when the Conservative party was in government. People remember the days of interest rates at 15 per cent., negative equity, repossession and boom and bust, and they never want to go back to them.

May I welcome the employment figures published today? They show that unemployment in Wirral, South, for example, has fallen by a third generally since the last election, and by 80 per cent. among long-term unemployed young people. My right hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that structural change is occurring, not least in manufacturing, and that the picture will vary from area to area. Excellent though the figures are, does he agree that the Government will be judged not only by these excellent headline items, but by the way in which they handle the process and help the areas, individuals and communities that are affected by economic and industrial change? [Interruption.]

A moment ago, the Opposition were not interested in listening to what was said about interest rates; now they are not interested in jobs either. Today's figures show that unemployment is now at a record low for almost 25 years. Many people remember when 3 million were unemployed. The figures indicate, along with the fact that there are still 1 million vacancies in the economy, that we are finally providing the ability not only to have economic stability, but to put on top of that a productive job-creating base for the economy. That is immensely important.

Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman for some figures. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), stated in a written answer on 23 January that the cost of asylum support was £664 million. Does the Prime Minister stand by her answer?

Yes.

Even by the Government's standards, their reputation for honest answers has sunk to a new low. The real cost to the taxpayer was sent from the Home Office to No. 10 Downing street in the same week as the parliamentary answer was given. Total asylum support costs £835 million. The covering memo from the Home Office states:

"this report is for internal information…lines to take for public use will be provided separately".

"lines to take for public use",

That is quite wrong. The budget is as I set it out a moment ago, and accords with the figure that the right hon. Gentleman first put to me. He describes the costs that depend on, and fluctuate because of, the number of asylum seekers. They will go up and down. However, as a result of our measures, approximately three times as many asylum seekers are being removed now as five years ago. From next year, somewhere in the region of 30,000 will be removed. That will reduce those costs considerably.

Once again, the Government have been caught out on their statistics. We know that the budget was £660 million. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister were asked about the cost. The Prime Minister talks about the number of removals; will he confirm that, of the 69,000 asylum claims that were rejected last year, only 9,000 claimants left the country? Taken together, do not the figures demonstrate the collapse of the Government's asylum policy? They have made this country a soft touch and turned us into the asylum capital of Europe. Everyone knows the Government's true record: a record number of applications, a record number of people avoiding deportation, and a record amount of deception and failure.

Perhaps I can give the right hon. Gentleman the facts The figure of 9,000 is correct. As I said earlier, that is three times the number of people who were removed five years ago under the Conservative Government. However, the overall number of people removed is some 46 000.

More!

Order. I call Mr. Jim Cousins.

On Monday, the Prime Minister rightly set out the need to improve educational opportunity. Nowhere is that need greater than in the north-east of England, as he well knows. Will he promise the people of the north-east of England an early opportunity to decide for themselves whether they, like the Scots, want a political voice to tackle their deep-seated problems for themselves, rather than just being the victims of them?

As I have said before, that is a matter for local people to decide. I understand the case for a regional assembly. The advent of the regional development agencies has been immensely important in the north-east and other areas. In our region, they have safeguarded some 11,000 jobs and brought in a great deal of inward investment. That is why I believe that it is so important that we keep the regional development agencies and build them up, rather than abolishing them as the Conservative party has suggested.

Will the Prime Minister help the lobby outside by telling us how many representative bodies have called on him to bring to an end community health councils?

As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) earlier, we will have to wait for the outcome of the consultation that will be announced soon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the size the investment in the national health service is a better testimony to our commitment to the national health service than the cuts proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warmth with which Polish people and people of Polish descent in this country welcome the setting up by the Government of a commission to examine the substantial contribution of Polish people—some of whom did not survive—in fighting alongside the allies in the second world war? Is he also aware of their hope that the Government will not be diverted from the path to enlargement of the European Union by the xenophobia shown by the Opposition?

We have been advocates for the enlargement process right from the beginning. The vision of a unified Europe, east and west, is a vision of peace and prosperity for all the people in Europe for the future. That is why this country will continue to advocate enlargement, and why we will not allow any obstruction to get in the way of that enlargement process moving forward.

Does the Prime Minister believe that physiotherapy provided to an elderly person who has suffered a stroke should be provided free in their own home or in a residential or charitable nursing home? Does he also believe that elderly people who are not in hospital but in their own home or in a residential home and require incontinence pads should be entitled to receive them free under the national health service? If he does, will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Health issues a proper definition of personal social care as soon as possible?

It is important that the definition is right. Nursing care, in future, will be free. We had to take a decision— [interruption.] Opposition Members may grumble, but none of those provisions were free under the previous Government. Let me just point that out to them: we are introducing free nursing care. We have chosen not to introduce free personal care because it would cost about £1 billion, and we believe that that money would be better spent elsewhere.

Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give his personal attention to resolving issues concerning state aid that are currently holding back a number of important public-private sector investments in the Merseyside objective 1 area? Does he agree that speedy resolution of that issue is essential to enable the Government's policy of supporting private investment as part of regeneration to be maximised throughout the country?

I entirely agree about the importance of proceeding as quickly as possible with the public-private partnerships that will yield such benefit in terms of investment and jobs in regions such as the north-west, particularly those undergoing structural economic change. I can offer my hon. Friend this assurance: we will do all we can to make progress quickly.

In July, in the House, the Prime Minister promised Labour Members a free vote on the report "Shifting the Balance". On Monday—not that the Prime Minister troubled himself to vote—they were denied a free vote.

I understand that the debate took place on a Tory Opposition day, so it is hardly surprising that we should oppose what the Opposition wanted. Let me offer the hon. Gentleman some advice, however. Next time he asks a question at Prime Minister's Question Time—perhaps a question on the economy—he should recall the words of Lord Strathclyde, which I think bear repeating. Just a couple of days ago, Lord Strathclyde said:

"I think there's always a danger of political parties peaking too soon, and I think William Hague and the shadow cabinet have very cleverly avoided that."

The Minister has shown his customary courtesy in praising the members of the Committee. Will he go further and praise the Select Committee on Health, which opposes the community health council abolition proposed in the Bill?

I am not aware that the Health Select Committee has formed an opinion on a specific proposal in the Bill. However, the proposals for a better and more powerful system of patient representation and health service scrutiny we re discussed in some detail in Committee.

It may well be that the Government are not introducing issues of principle, but the Opposition most certainly are doing so. For example, amendment No. 6, which deals with the abolition of CHCs, is a matter of major importance. That will inevitably mean that many Members will want to speak. The effect of the timetable motion will make that extremely difficult.

In Committee, when those matters were discussed in some detail, we did hot take all the time allocated for their scrutiny. I see no reason why we should not hold a perfectly adequate debate later today, which will enable us to examine the issues that hon. Members want to raise.

As the Minister has twice asserted that the Committee did not use all the available allocated time, will he make it clear to the House—for the avoidance of doubt—that the timetable contained fixed milestones, Because of those fixed milestones, it was not necessarily open to the Committee to debate issues that needed further consideration. The total amount of unused time is not an indication that all matters were fully debated.

No, but in this case there could have been more discussion of the particular topic that has been mentioned today. The Government flowed flexibility by agreeing to additional time—not all of which proved necessary—to deal with the amendments that we tabled on primary care.

I oppose the motion on grounds of both principle and practicality. Throughout the appalling number of recent debates on such programme motions, we have made no secret of our belief that a contempt for parliamentary process is being systematically operated by a Government who want to avoid scrutiny wherever possible. In recent years, there has been an unhealthy strengthening of the Executive—this is the latest and greatest manifestation of that trend. It diminishes the authority of Parliament itself; it diminishes the voice of each us to represent the needs, wishes and interests of our constituents on a range of issues.

"I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government offered more time for debate in Committee, and if the Opposition had wanted to, they could have taken up that offer."—[Official Report, 13 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 189.]

I am somewhat surprised, as well as perturbed, by what my hon. Friend says about the Minister for Public Health. Is he aware that that statement by the hon. Lady is in stark contrast to, and incompatible with, what she previously told the House? Previously, she said that she had held no discussions with representatives of the Government Whips Office about the timetabling.

My hon. Friend makes a valuable and serious point. Those two statements seem mutually exclusive, and I am sure that he will carry out further investigations because the House will want to know the exact truth. We cannot have Ministers saying that discussions have taken place through the usual channels, which is how we maintain civilised relations and order in the House, when it appears that they have not taken place. That can only undermine confidence in those discussions.

Is not the inevitable consequence of the timetable motion that many of those amendments will not be debated in the House? If they are debated at all, it will be in the other place. If amendments are made there, they will return to the House, probably on a timetable and so will never be debated in the House.

It is the ultimate irony that the Government, who came to office with open contempt for the other place, have now created arrangements whereby the electorate rely even more on the other place to scrutinise legislation, because we in this House are given so little time to do so by a Government who ruthlessly use their large parliamentary majority to restrict the time available. People outside want many issues to be debated today and there are many groups of amendments—for example, on medical, dental and pharmaceutical lists; on local authority overview; on patient information; on representation of patients and the community health councils; on nursing care; and on intervention orders.

My hon. Friend will be only too aware that so many amendments were tabled to the Utilities Bill that, in the end, it was such a mess that half the Bill had to be discarded after a considerable waste of time. Is he aware that we have just five hours in which to discuss all nine groups of amendments that Mr. Speaker has selected? Perhaps the most important group, which concerns our constituents most of all, is that on the representation of patients and community health councils, which contains 22 amendments. My hon. Friend has correctly said that many amendments and new clauses will not even be discussed, but, by my simple calculation, we shall have less than a minute to discuss each amendment or new clause that is debated. Does he agree that that amount of time is inadequate?

My hon. Friend makes several important points, the first of which is that the problem is not confined to the Bill; it has occurred on numerous occasions. Secondly, good legislation requires a lot of scrutiny. No matter how recently hon. Members were elected, they will all know of legislation that would have been better if we had spent more time scrutinising it in greater detail. It is distressing that those of us who are elected to represent our constituents increasingly have to rely on an unelected Chamber to scrutinise legislation appropriately. That cannot be the correct constitutional balance. Major issues have been raised by the fact that the Government have sought to gag the elected House in a way that they are, thankfully, incapable of doing with the unelected House. There is a gross imbalance in the way that we consider legislation.

The Committee is one of the most important stages in the scrutiny of a Bill. Unlike me, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee that considered this Bill, but how many Committee sittings did he actually attend?

I am afraid that, in addition to selling out on community health councils, the hon. Gentleman appears increasingly to be selling out to his Whips. The issue is how well the Bill was scrutinised in Committee and how much time was given to that. I have every confidence that my Front-Bench colleagues scrutinised the Bill in Committee better than I would have done. They did a magnificent job. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are major issues to be debated, so I am sorry that he has tried to sidetrack the House in a manner that is frivolous and unworthy of him.

The point made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was pitiful. It was unworthy of his status as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State for Health did not sit and did not seek to sit either on the Standing Committee for this Bill or on that for the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill? We do not particularly criticise him for that: he is very important, very senior, very respected and very busy and has a very full diary. However, my hon. Friend contributed intelligently to the Committee, and he was aided and abetted by my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). It ill behoves the hon. Member for Wakefield to make such a cheap, invalid and thoroughly bogus criticism.

Yes, and I have no intention of continuing the debate on this point. We all understand that the Secretary of State is far too important to take part in the scrutiny of his or any other legislation. He is above the normal tasks that the House carries out, and it is far more important these days for Secret tries of State simply to make sure that they are fully available for the photo-opportunities, headlines and soundbites that an the Government's hallmark.

Liberal Democrats do not usually approve of wasting time on programme motions, but it is important to make a few points now.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in opposing the motion. I am not fundamentally opposed to all programme motions. I know that some of my hon. Friends are against them all, and I respect that view. I do not share that view, and there have been occasions when I have put my name to programme motions. I did so because I felt that that was in the best interests of a structured debate, sometimes with benefits to the Opposition. However, I am in favour of programme motions only when they do justice to the issues under discussion and give the House an adequate opportunity to scrutinise them. That is not the position this afternoon.

Given the Prime Minister's indication at Question Time that the Government may be intending to make a partial U-turn, does my right hon. Friend agree that in the light of the discussions in defence of the Government's original proposals in Committee, in which the Minister of State participated, it would be unacceptable to have any new Government ideas being put briefly to the House this evening? We would be unable fully to scrutinise what the Government intend to do. That opportunity should be available to us in Committee.

If the Government are about to make a major change in their policy on CHCs, that could not be accommodated within the programme motion, which was tabled before such a U-turn was contemplated. That would be an injustice to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman commented on Labour Members speaking on behalf of community health councils. Does he remember that on Second Reading I spoke on behalf of Redbridge CHC and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) spoke on behalf of the CHC in her constituency? We put forward our views on Second Reading.

We were sorry not to see the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) in Committee, where their concerns were not done justice by the Labour Members who served on it.

The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) has made a challenging and important point. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although she and the hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) bravely and eloquently criticised the Government's policy on CHCs on Second Reading, that does not remove or diminish their responsibility, if the Government have not responded to that concern, to repeat their criticism in even more forceful terms?

The House awaits the hon. Lady's speech with bated breath.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will remind the House that there is no reason why we should finish at 10 pm. Last night, we continued until 12 midnight on a Government Bill. The Government were content to allow the House to debate the complications of the Capital Allowances Bill between 10 pm and 12 midnight. Why should we not do the same with today's Bill?

I am sure that the Minister will deal with that when he replies. My right hon. and learned Friend said that there is no reason why we should not go beyond 10 o'clock but, as he knows, that is what the programme motion says. If it is carried, we will have to stop at 10 o'clock. Health councils, patient information—dealt with in clause 61I, which was previously clause 59—the new regime for prescribing, important changes for residential and nursing homes and the new changes to capital limits are important issues in the Bill to which the House will not be able to do justice by 9 o'clock.

I, too, want to speak briefly against the programme motion. I am not opposed to modernisation or the timetabling of Bills, and I have supported programme motions when I felt that sufficient time and consultation had been allowed. However, it is clear that we do not have enough time to scrutinise the details of this Bill before 9 o'clock.

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House and, through it, the wider community that a Bill's Report stage is the only occasion when Members as a whole have an opportunity to address its details? As there were no Welsh Members in Committee, that Report stage is the only occasion when Members who represent Welsh constituencies can debate the detail of the Bill. They are being prevented from doing that by the Government.

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which is why I oppose the programme motion.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is too modest to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he had to make the case for giving powers to the National Assembly for Wales to make its own decisions on matters such as personal care and nursing.

I am grateful for I hat information. I am sure that many hon. Members do not forget Wales. My point is that we need Members front Wales to ensure that all the issues are put across. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) did his best, but it is important that we acknowledge that, on Report, ordinary Back-Bench Members have an opportunity to scrutinise legislation and to support or oppose individual amendments.

I commend to the Leader of the House the speeches that have been made on the guillotine motion. The motion is in the name of the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Health, neither of whom had the courtesy to move the motion personally, although it touches on the principal reason why we are in this place: the scrutiny of legislation and the holding of Governments to account. The motion needed the authority of a Cabinet member.

The hon. Gentleman rails against the Government for using their democratically elected majority to get their business through the House. Does he also rail against the other place for using its huge undemocratically elected majority to hold up business?

A majority ultimately comes into play, but let us be clear that we are discussing the process. That process, which the motion tries to deny, involves the rights of Members—who represent diverse communities—and their only opportunity, if they are not members of a Standing Committee, to discuss the issues that they deem to be important. That is called process, but the new system has effectively eliminated it.

I have a further point in line with what my hon. Friend is saying. The Government might cave in to some extent today on community health councils, but there will be restricted time for consideration of any new proposals. Not only will we have little time at this sitting, if the proposals are amended in the other place our consideration will be guillotined yet again, which will be a double insult to us and to our constituents.

That is the essence of the point that I am trying to make. The Government are not interested in the process or in the fact that we may or may not discuss these matters. No Government should consciously impose an absurd guillotine such as that in the motion—and the motion is not isolated; it is part of the Labour Government's consistent policy to relegate the proper processes within which we try to represent our electorate. There is no question about that.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who spoke with considerable passion. I want to speak not about the constitutional issues, but merely the practical issues raised by the programme motion—or the guillotine, as my hon. Friend called it.

Twenty-three.

It contains 23 amendments and new clauses, as my hon. Friend points out. It includes some Government amendments. which were presumably tabled because Labour Members learned in Committee that the Bill was incomplete, incorrect or flawed.

The Government's Achilles heel is arrogance. The speed with which they took the Bill through Committee demonstrates that. Second Reading occurred on 10 January; barely a month later, on 14 February, we have reached Report. Yet the Bill has 70 clauses, six schedules—