What his policies are for reducing the level of violence in Northern Ireland. [154338]

The Government continue to support the efforts of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to reduce violence in Northern Ireland.

Against a background that is generally encouraging for the future of a peaceful Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State confirm that the reduction of violence among young people will be a priority for him and his colleagues as well as the Chief Constable? I am talking not about paramilitary violence but about burglaries, violence against the person and sexual offences, which show an upward trend. Will he consider favourably organisations such as Regenerate? It has the advantage of providing for former paramilitaries to work with young people to teach them the evil of their ways. Such role models are a way forward for Northern Ireland and may set the crime figures on a downward trend.

Yes; like all hon. Members I condemn and abhor crime, especially crimes that inflict damage on human beings. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We shall continue to bear down on paramilitary and non-paramilitary violent crime and to support the Chief Constable as much as we can.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of Northern Ireland wake up to a daily diet of extreme violence, the manner of which is changing from the baseball bat to the gun again? Those crimes may be permitted or committed by paramilitaries, but will he undertake to set up a special team in each locality in Northern Ireland to deal with drugs rackets and protection rackets for which organised crime or paramilitaries are responsible?

Yes. We should make it clear that the perpetrators of violence have no legitimacy, mandate or support. They are abhorred by the vast majority of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the current unacceptable violence in north Belfast? It reflects a lack of policing on the ground. Does he realise that some of the Patten recommendations have had an adverse effect on police morale, which has resulted in a high incidence of stress-related absenteeism? What are the Government's intentions for redressing the imbalance?

I am aware of the activities in north Belfast. That is why the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supplemented by the Army, has put in extra effort with some success.

I acknowledge what my right hon. Friend has said. Has he estimated how many people are alive today in Northern Ireland and in Britain because of the Good Friday agreement? We should not forget that. If decommissioning immunity is extended beyond May, does he intend June to be the target date for some genuine decommissioning, which we all want to happen?

Given the tragic losses for more than 3,600 families in the recent decades of the troubles, the peace process has been enormously beneficial despite our difficulties and challenges. The order that I tabled yesterday is technically necessary to ensure that immunity from prosecution for those involved in decommissioning weapons continues after 19 May, when it would otherwise expire. That does not affect the target date of June this year, which we and the Irish Government set last May for achieving the remaining steps necessary to secure full implementation of the Good Friday agreement.

I am sure that the Minister will want to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), who was telling us recently in our newspapers that there was no point in coming here because it was a waste of time. It is nice to know that, at the end of this Parliament, he has made his maiden speech. [Interruption.] When one throws a stone among dogs, the one that is hit the hardest barks the loudest.

Order. There is far too much noise on this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was a wee bit of noise on that side of the House as well.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware that confidence in the new police service will be a prime concern in the coming years. Will he, therefore, make a statement that, once Mrs. O'Loan has finished her inquiries into the Hamill affair, he will set up a public inquiry to look into all the circumstances surrounding that tragic death and its aftermath?

Two inquiries are already going on into that case, and prosecutions might arise from either or both of them. Once those inquiries, and any prosecutions, have finished, and if there is still widespread concern, we have not ruled out any course of action.

Are the Secretary of State's commendable efforts to reduce violence likely to be helped by giving an amnesty to prisoners on the run? Does he agree that, because the Maze escapees have been allowed to walk away free, they have been given the opportunity to benefit from their escape, which is quite wrong in a lawful society?

With respect, I must correct the right hon. Gentleman: there is not an amnesty; those people are on licence. Secondly, this is not news; it has been known for some considerable time. Thirdly, it is part of an overall peace process. If he is asking me whether this is a constituent element of a process that will result in the diminution of violence and a better, fairer, more decent, prosperous and secure Northern Ireland, my answer is yes.

Inevitably, most people will consider that to be an amnesty. The Secretary of State is aware that the Prime Minister promised the people of Northern Ireland a parallel Process, which we strongly supported, that meant that terrorist prisoners would be released with all illegally held arms and explosives being decommissioned at the same time. The simple truth is that not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex has been handed in, but more than 400 terrorist prisoners are back on the streets. That is a serious breach of the Belfast agreement. Does he agree that it needs rectifying quickly?

If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether we want early decommissioning as part of the peace process, the answer is yes. We made our view known last year: we want to achieve substantial progress on all elements of the Good Friday agreement by June. We continue to press for that because we believe that moving forward with a new political institution in Northern Ireland in which all sides participate and forming a new police service in Northern Ireland will lead to normalisation and demilitarisation from the point of view of the British Government; of course, an additional element of that is decommissioning. We continue to press on it.

If he will make a statement on measures being taken to combat organised crime in Northern Ireland. [154340]

Last Friday, I launched the first-ever publicly available assessment of the threat to Northern Ireland from organised crime and the strategy for countering that threat. The threat assessment is the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the strategy is the work of the Northern Ireland organised crime taskforce, which was established in September last year.

Particularly in view of our present difficulties, does my right hon. Friend regard the organised smuggling of sheep and cattle as a serious criminal activity? What plans has he to deal with it?

Yes, I share that view. The foot and mouth outbreak is primarily a matter for the devolved Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, the organised crime taskforce takes livestock smuggling seriously and work is already under way to tackle that harmful threat. The recently launched threat assessment identifies at least two organised crime groups involved in illegal movement across the land border with the Republic of Ireland, not to mention a number of individuals who are also involved. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the RUC and other law enforcement agencies, the devolved Administration and the Government are determined to take that on with full vigour.

I am sure that the Minister has seen the welcome condemnation by the Irish agriculture Minister of the code of silence that has existed among the smugglers of South Armagh and Louth—the people who brought foot and mouth to Ireland. Although the measures that the Minister announced last Friday are welcome, does he agree that if we are to get on top of organised crime—in respect of which the smuggling of animals, fuel, tobacco and drugs is the most significant manifestation—we need to find ways to mobilise all society to change the culture of those areas so that people there realise that they cannot continue in the state of lawlessness that has marked them over the past few decades?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid point. Part of the reason for the law enforcement agencies being unable to achieve more success is that there is so much fear and intimidation in Northern Ireland. That makes it difficult to bring people to justice. Part of the strategy that we have launched, which he fully supports, is to try to create greater public awareness of the extent of the problem and the way in which it corrodes, eating into the very heart of the society of Northern Ireland. That relates to another issue that he raised—the cross jurisdictional effect. Crime knows no borders and no boundaries. Together, the Governments will look for ways in which we can further tackle the threat.

I congratulate the Minister on his latest initiative to crack down on the 400 paramilitary and non-paramilitary individuals who are involved in organised crime, but does he remember the comments of Danny Morrison, the IRA propagandist, who said:

"It is hard to maintain the revolution when people have a colour TV in the living room and a car in the drive"?

As the House knows, my hon. Friend served for a time as a Northern Ireland Minister, and followed me as Minister responsible for the economy. We can take some satisfaction from the way in which that economy is succeeding on the back of policies implemented by the present Government. The best message that could be sent from the House would be sent by the return of a Labour Government, by the continuation of policies that have been successful, and by that United Kingdom Government's working with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to increase prosperity there. That can better be achieved when we eliminate organised crime from Northern Ireland society, and bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland.

rose—

Order. May I appeal for quiet on both sides of the House? The noise that is being made is unfair to hon. Members who are listening to Northern Ireland questions.

If he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the relationship between the Real and the Provisional IRA. [154341]

The Real IRA has its roots within the Provisional IRA, and evolved as a consequence of a breakaway of disaffected PIRA members over their organisation's support for the political/peace process. We believe that the Real IRA and the Provisional IRA are entirely separate organisations.

Does the Minister not think that the use of Semtex by the Real IRA might suggest at least some collusion between that organisation and at least some members of the Provisional IRA?

No, I do not, and there is no evidence that that is the case. What I do accept is that the Real IRA and the PIRA are linked by a common cause; they are also linked by a callous disregard for human life and the human rights of their fellow citizens.

What information has the Minister requested or received from the Irish Government about a recent attempt by the Provisional IRA, using guns smuggled from Florida, to murder an alleged member of the Real IRA? It is argued that he stole IRA weapons. Does that event cause the Minister concern, and what impact does he expect it to have on the peace process?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware of the increasingly close co-operation that exists between the two Governments in tackling the real threat and menace posed by the Real IRA. It is manifest in the co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the other law enforcement agencies. That is the best way in which we can tackle the situation. The message that should be sent by the House—I know that it would be sent by the hon. Gentleman—is that anyone with information about the conduct of those carrying out such acts, whatever the organisation to which they belong, should come forward to give evidence and help bring such people to justice.

Given that the Real IRA has rejected the peace process and will not engage with the de Chastelain commission, should not the United States Government designate it as a proscribed organisation? What action has the Minister taken to bring that about?

The Government are determined to explore every option available to disrupt the activities of members of the Real IRA who continue to use violence. For that reason, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have made joint representations to the United States authorities for the Real IRA to be designated under US law. We have submitted information in support of that request.

What recent representations he has received regarding recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [154342]

Recruiting to the Police Service of Northern Ireland began on 23 February. The level of interest has greatly exceeded expectations. About 20,000 inquiries have now been made, and by 26 March nearly 3,800 applications had been received. The closing date for applications is this Friday.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. He will be aware that, in the past three years, the RUC's reserve and regular strength has decreased from 12,700 to 11,500. Will he detail the active steps that he will be taking to reverse that depressing trend?

The hon. Gentleman did not mention the target of about 7,500 that was outlined in the Patten commission report and that has some relevance to his question. We are taking various measures to remedy the situation, not the least of which is our current recruitment. Not only have we had an overwhelming response to that, but it has been targeted on a 50–50 basis, so that both sides of the community and both traditions will be involved. We hope to have a police service that is more acceptable to the whole community. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in constant touch with the Chief Constable to ensure that the operational capability of the RUC and of the future police service will not be diminished beneath the necessary levels.

Does my right hon. Friend know how many of those applications have come from women applicants, and does he have any idea of whether the number of women recruited into the police service is going up or reversing? Does he agree that the more women there are in senior positions, the more it will help to recruit women into the police service?

I am afraid that I cannot as yet tell my hon. Friend the breakdown of the figures on grounds either of sex or of religion. That will come at a later stage. However, not only do we of course welcome equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland, but we have incorporated—probably to a greater degree than anywhere else in the United Kingdom or, indeed, in Europe—the principle of equality of opportunity.

Has the Social Democratic and Labour Party provided the Minister with an explanation of its apparent continuing unwillingness to give wholehearted support to the initiative to encourage more Catholics to apply to the police service? Does the Minister know why it has not yet nominated its representatives to the Policing Board?

There have been many constructive discussions with the SDLP over many months. [Interruption.] When possible, the Government have moved to meet the SDLP's concerns, and I believe that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 is better for that— [Interruption.]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we owe a tremendous debt to the RUC reserves? Does he also agree that, in giving that service, they have had the least security of tenure and least regard, but have made a huge sacrifice for society in Northern Ireland? Will he assure me that members of the RUC reserves who wish to join the new Police Service of Northern Ireland will be given every opportunity and encouragement to apply so that we can make use of their experience and dedication?

I can assure my hon. Friend that they, with everyone else, will be welcome to join the new police service. I also have no hesitation in according to the RUC the accolade of the whole House for the sacrifices that it has made over very many years in fighting terrorism. Indeed, that was recognised by the award that was given to the RUC. I hope that the widows of RUC officers who died fighting terrorism before 1982 will feel that their sacrifice has been recognised in some small way by the grant that we made recently. That grant was made available after representations from, among others, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party.

Does the Secretary of State share our dismay that, despite the Patten reforms—some of which have caused great pain to the RUC—nationalist parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government and the Catholic Church still refuse to recommend that young Roman Catholic men and women join the police?

The police service that we are creating in Northern Ireland is not merely a negotiating concession to the nationalist side. We are creating a service that will be accountable to, and respected by, the whole community, all of whom will participate in it. That will be of enormous benefit to the whole of Northern Ireland.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 March.

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.

Does the Prime Minister remember the manifesto for London, which his party issued at the last general election and which bore his signature? In it, he said that his policies would make London a showcase for Britain. Can he imagine the untold misery that millions of commuters in the capital will suffer on the underground tomorrow, thanks to the failure of his policies? Is not it a fact that the unions, the Commissioner of Transport for London and the Mayor of London—whose job the Prime Minister created—all lack any confidence in the system? Does he agree with the commissioner that, if safety is to be ensured, the commissioner should have the right to decide the priorities in the capital spending programme—or will it all be left to the judges?

First, a few facts. There is an extra £1 billion in investment under this Government, over and above the plans of the previous Government who were supported by the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, the public-private partnership will guarantee a substantial uplift in investment in the London underground. That money will come not only from the public sector, but from the private sector, and it will be way over and above any investment made by the Conservative Government.

Given that the Government and the Opposition parties accept that the most democratic electoral system for local government, Assembly and European elections in Northern Ireland is the proportional representation system, does not the Prime Minister think that that system should be introduced for elections to this House?

The circumstances of Northern Ireland are very particular, and do not necessarily have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom.

In the past 48 hours of the foot and mouth crisis, it has become clear that the Government are contemplating what we all, on both sides of the House, previously regarded as unthinkable: a policy of widespread vaccination. The Opposition share the distress of many in the countryside that the crisis has reached this point, but we welcome the fact that contingency plans are being drawn up—in fact, we called for such plans—as a last resort. Will the Prime Minister clarify exactly what kind of vaccination policy is being considered? Is it the vaccination of a limited number of animals, which will then be slaughtered, or the vaccination of a far greater number? What are the implications of that for export resumption?

It is correct, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago, that we must consider the option of vaccination. It is being considered for particular areas where the disease has spread to many parts. Obviously, in other areas, the disease has been far more easily controlled and the number of cases is fewer. I think it best not to announce the precise details until we have discussed the matter with representatives of the National Farmers Union. Obviously, it is a contingency that we have to look at. I understand the huge resistance in parts of the farming community, because of the difficulties for the farming industry itself. Vaccination is no easy solution—that has to be said clearly. However, it is necessary to consider it because it has clearly emerged during the past few days, as more and more evidence has come through of the number of sheep movements prior to the detection and reporting of the disease—I think that I told the House a couple of weeks ago that there might have been as many as 2,000 sheep movements before the disease was detected, but now it is clear that that was an understatement—that probably about 1.35 million sheep were exported or moved during the month of February. Therefore, if the disease was incubating then, it has been far more widespread than hitherto thought. That is why in certain areas, where the disease is particularly strong, we have to consider the option of vaccination, but we shall discuss that very carefully with people in the farming community before we announce the details.

Clearly, the Government have been forced to consider a vaccination policy because the disease continues to spread at an alarming rate. I put it to the Prime Minister that there continues to be a serious lack of resources on the front line in particular areas. In a situation where every hour counts, many farmers report that it takes many hours to get through to MAFF on the telephone even to report a case of foot and mouth. The need for more vets remains, even though many more have been recruited.

"Yesterday … I heard three times on radio and television that more vets are required … Last Friday … I phoned the MAFF offices at Exeter and Bristol … and offered my services. I was thanked for the offer of help … I have heard nothing since."

Obviously, I do not know about the particular case the right hon. Gentleman mentions. When I was in Worcester yesterday, I met retired vets who had been brought back into service. There are now about seven times the usual number of vets in the state veterinary service. We continue to recruit them from whatever source we possibly can.

Clearly, the vets and soldiers involved in tackling this crisis are doing a tremendous job and are working extremely hard. However, in every way one looks at it at present, the crisis is getting worse. Yesterday, we had a record number of outbreaks, and three of the outbreaks in recent days have been in new areas— [Interruption.] We had 47 outbreaks, so if it is not a record, it is very near to a record. Three of the outbreaks in recent days have been in entirely new areas, including a further outbreak today. The backlog of infected animals awaiting slaughter has doubled in the past week to more than 250,000 and the number of carcases has reached 118,000. When does the Prime Minister think that this disease will truly be under control?

Let me first correct some of the information that the right hon. Gentleman has given. There is an enormous effort on the ground. The Army logistics team is doing a superb job, the vets are working every hour that they possibly can, and slaughtermen and contractors are being hired at a huge rate.

We are entitled to ask when the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the disease will be under control—[Interruption.] We are entitled to ask, because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said three weeks ago that it was under control, but the chief scientist said that it was not under control—[Interruption.]

Order. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to have to shout.

There is a major crisis in this country, which some Labour Members wish to ignore. We are entitled to ask when the disease will be under control, because the Minister said that it was under control, the chief scientist said that it was not under control, and the Prime Minister said that it was on track to being under control. We are entitled to ask when the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it will be brought under control—that is terminology that the Government use.

Of course we must do everything that we can to ensure that the disease is brought under control and eradicated, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that anyone is ignoring the seriousness of the problem. We all recognise how serious it is, which is precisely why we are taking the measures that we are.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those farmers who are in the fortunate position of still being able to sell their livestock at market are facing reductions in prices—in some cases, for lambs, of up to £11 and perhaps even more? Will he take this opportunity first, to encourage the British public to continue to buy British meat and support our British farmers, and secondly, to ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to review whether our farmers and consumers are getting the best deal from the retailers, who do not appear to be passing on those reductions to the consumers?

On the last point about prices, I know that that concern is often expressed, and we have discussed it with the retailers and the farming industry. On the first point, it is worth stressing that in addition to the £600 million agrimonetary compensation that we are paying out, there is an additional £150 million agrimonetary compensation and more than £150 million compensation for the animals slaughtered.

Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that if any Labour Member uses racist language or language that invites racist instincts in this country, he will without hesitation, on principle and on the spot, withdraw the parliamentary Whip from such a Member?

I have made it clear that it is entirely unacceptable for any Labour candidate to use language of a racist nature or language calculated to stir up racist feelings in this country. The right hon. Gentleman and I—and, indeed, all the main political parties—signed up to the Commission for Racial Equality statement. We will abide by that statement, as I am sure all political parties will.

I welcome the Prime Minister's comments. I agree that all the main party leaders in this country signed the pledge from the Commission for Racial Equality. In particular, if we are in a pre-election mode in this country, is it not deeply important that we ensure that those words are worth more than the paper they are written on?

It is generally accepted on both sides of the House that Britain benefits from being a multicultural, multiracial society and that many people, including many hon. Members, have backgrounds from other countries. I dare say that virtually all of us have in us some blood from other races and nations. In this modern day and age, surely it is not merely a principle that is morally right, but in our self-interest that anyone, irrespective of race or ethnic background, is a full and proper member of our society.

When I arrived in the House in May 1997, I became acutely aware that many of us were suffering from a very serious medical condition. However, I subsequently realised that, for most of us, it is a selective condition—but for millions of people in the United Kingdom deafness is a real problem. I want to take this opportunity to thank those hon. Members who signed my early-day motion on testing for deafness in babies.

My hon. Friend draws attention to a very serious problem. Many children are perceived to have particular learning disabilities, whereas their true problem is one of deafness. The Government's neo-natal hearing screening scheme is now being piloted at some 20 sites across the country. Subject to the successful piloting of the scheme, it is our intention to introduce it nationwide and to try to ensure that, for those children who have that disability, it is spotted early and dealt with.

Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] While Labour Members jeer, large parts of the country are living in seige conditions—[Interruption.]

Order. We must hear the hon. Gentleman.

Labour Members may jeer, but as they do large parts of the country are living under siege conditions and many thousands of our countrymen face losing their livelihoods. Will the Prime Minister now give us his estimate for the number of dead livestock by May?

The number of dead livestock obviously depends on the number of premises in which the disease is detected. What we have—[Interruption.] It is impossible for me to predict precisely the number of premises in which the disease will be detected in the coming two months. It is important, however, that where the disease is detected in any premises—in other words, they are infected premises—the animals are slaughtered within 24 hours. As I said, with the exception of Cumbria, where that is very difficult to do because of the spread of the disease, that is now happening in the vast majority of infected areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some private hospitals are charging different amounts for the same operation—a lower amount if patients pay cash up front and up to twice the amount if the operation is paid for by a private health insurer? To get round that problem, some private health insurers encourage their clients to pay in the first instance and to split the difference on the balance. Given that evidence, does he think that the whole area of private health and private health insurance needs to come with a Government health warning, particularly in the light of the Conservative party's policies?

I was not aware of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers. However, many people believe that the national health service provides, and should provide, the best guarantee for them of good treatment. An enormous amount of change and investment is necessary, and it is this Government who are making the biggest substantial investment in the national health service since its creation.

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that, in the face of the worst crisis in my constituency and the south-west generally in my time as a Member of Parliament—the regional development agency has just assessed that, this year, it will cost the south-west £1 billion, with the cost to be borne by businesses of all sorts—and with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food virtually at breaking point and other Departments desperately trying to provide information, the role of an MP becomes absolutely critical? Therefore, I would find it inconceivable if my constituents were suddenly to be unrepresented at the time of the greatest crisis that they have faced. This is a national emergency.

The Army has full responsibility for all logistical operations in its regions. Based on talks with people in the areas most affected, I think that the relationship between civil service officials and the military is working well. The position, however, is very difficult, particularly in areas such as Cumbria where the disease is at its height.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the generous purposes of Government policies are often diminished by public administration and by long and complex forms, obscure language and protracted procedures? Will he champion a campaign in all Departments to base public administration on the minimum number of questions necessary, plain English and service with a smile?

That has probably been the ambition of most Prime Ministers for a long period. It is right that the measures that have been taken for schools, hospitals and the police will reduce bureaucracy. It is important that we make those changes and reforms, but it is also important that we make the big investment in our schools, hospitals and police that the country needs. As a result of the investment already made, we have the best primary school results this country has ever seen, we now have 17,000 more nurses in the health service than a few years ago, and the latest police figures show that, in the past 14 months, numbers have risen by 1,400, which is the largest rise in well over a decade.

Will the Prime Minister pay particular attention to foot and mouth in Powys, where Brecon and Radnor has 11 cases and Montgomery has 16? We are on a knife edge. The carcases are supposed to be buried within 24 hours of the disease being identified, but we have only 50 troops available in Wales. Their headquarters is in my constituency. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to get more of the Army involved in Wales? Will he consider delaying the general election for one or two months so that he and his Ministers can concentrate on the issue?

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I have nothing to add to what I said on Monday. In respect of the Army, we sometimes hear that more troops are required on the ground and I will consider the situation in Powys. We have a sufficient number of contractors available to carry out the work. The problem is organising that and finding the burial sites that are needed. In the past week or so, as a result of the work by the Environment Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we have identified about 48 or 50 sites in different parts of the country, the most visible of which is in Cumbria, where a large site is being used for burial. We thought—I think rightly—that the priority was to achieve the policy of 24 hours from report of a case to slaughter. As I have said, disposal is happening more quickly as we open up burial sites. However, I shall consider the particular problem of Powys this afternoon.

As our nation's hearts go out to farming communities, can we spare a thought for the families of the 6,000 steelworkers who face great misery without receiving a peep of sympathy from the Conservatives or their stringpullers in the press? Will my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement by Corus yesterday that it will work with trade unions on a package to retrain as many of those steelworkers as possible? Surely the way forward in the 21st century is to have a social partnership, with Corus joining the car and aerospace industries in working with employees to ensure their future. Will he put his authority behind the help that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have given? They are providing grants and advice on working with the European rules to ensure that the rescue package succeeds. The steel community, after 20 years of being butchered by the Conservatives, now has a Government on its side.

We will certainly examine carefully the proposals by the trade unions and management on specific help with training. We also stand ready to help in any other way that we can with those several thousand people who unfortunately face losing their jobs. Again, I pay tribute to the way in which the trade unions have put together their package. They have acted in a highly responsible and commercially sensitive way. I hope that the company listens to them; we certainly will.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund warned that the Chancellor's spending plans risk damaging the economy. It said that the much-trumpeted golden rule is an inadequate guide to fiscal policy. Given that recent economic and financial developments have reinforced the criticism of the IMF, will the Prime Minister advise the Chancellor that his policies are heading towards boom and bust?

No, I do not think that I can. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the IMF. It said that the Chancellor should not relax his fiscal position and, of course, he did not, for the reasons that he gave in the Budget. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is against the extra investment that we are putting into schools, hospitals and crime. As ever, we have a somewhat confused message from the Conservatives about what their policies really are.

Last week, I met members of the Barnet senior citizens forum, who raised with me their concern about their perception of ageism in the NHS. I therefore welcome yesterday's announcement of the new NHS national service framework, which will ensure that services are provided on the basis of need, not age—[Interruption.] When does my right hon. Friend expect the new resources announced yesterday to make a real difference to pensioners in my constituency?

We certainly welcome the NHS statement, which forms part of the changes we are making. In response to the comments shouted by Opposition Members at my hon. Friend, let me remind them that we will be going into the election promising the largest ever investment in the health service, with 17,000 more nurses, a new hospital building programme and extra GPs on the way, while they will be going into the election arguing for cuts in that investment. I think that we will be waving bye bye to them.